[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 31, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1130-H1136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am so honored and pleased to be 
able to come to the House floor once again with another version, 
another edition of what we call the Official Truth Squad.
  The role of the Official Truth Squad is to attempt to try to bring 
some honesty and factual information to the floor of the House of 
Representatives. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, oftentimes that is 
difficult to find. Today was no exception on the floor of the House as 
we tried to, through the debate we had, make sure that facts were being 
presented and information was reliable upon which people make their 
decisions was being presented.
  I am honored by the leadership on the Republican side of the aisle to 
come to the floor tonight and share with the American people and talk 
about issues that are of great concern, some of which have been dealt 
with as recently as today.
  On the Official Truth Squad, we have a favorite quote which comes 
from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was a United States Senator from New 
York. He said, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they 
are not entitled to their own facts.''
  Mr. Speaker, no place could that ring more true than right here in 
the halls of Congress. We get a lot of opportunity to observe process 
here. We talk about process a lot. We talk about rules a lot. Many 
people say, what difference does that make? What difference do the 
rules make? And a lot of people, many people, say, on my side, say you 
don't want to talk about process. It is difficult for the American 
people to understand or appreciate.
  But what process does in a democratic institution, and this being the 
finest democratic institution in the world, the people's House, what 
process does is allow all voices to be heard and allow all points of 
view to be heard.
  I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if you think about it and if my friends 
on both sides of the aisle would think about it, we all appreciate that 
we don't have Republican challenges or Republican problems or Democrat 
problems or Democrat challenges. We have American challenges, American 
challenges that are best solved when we all work together and come up 
with the best and most correct solution for our Nation.
  But, sadly, Mr. Speaker, we haven't had much of that with this new 
Congress. That is, the opportunity to have input into the process. 
Again, the reason that the process is so important, because if you lock 
people out of the ability to have input into the process, then what 
happens, the individuals, the citizens, the American citizens that 
those people represent, those people who are locked out of the process, 
those American citizens are without a voice. They don't have a voice in 
the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that is not only unfair, it is undemocratic, and 
so I would respectfully suggest to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle that they ought to look at the rules that they have adopted and 
they ought to look at the process that they have gone through for these 
first 3 or 4 weeks that we have been in Congress and try to be true to 
their principles, or their stated principles, and make certain that all 
folks are able to be involved in the process. Because it makes a 
difference. It does indeed make a difference.
  Today, we took up on the floor of the House what was called a 
continuing resolution. It was, in fact, an omnibus bill. It was a 
spending bill.
  The last Congress, the one that was in place prior to the beginning 
of this month, the House did its job from a financial standpoint 
relatively efficiently. We passed all of our spending bills, 
appropriations bills, to try to figure out how to spend the hard-earned 
money from the taxpayer. We got our business done pretty quickly.
  The bills that we sent over to the Senate sat there and sat there and 
sat there. Consequently, what happened

[[Page H1131]]

was we came to the end of 2006 and there was no agreement between the 
Senate and the House about those appropriations bills. So what we 
passed was a continuing resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, the continuing resolution that we passed, which was 
truly a continuing resolution, which just meant that you continued to 
spend the same amount of money in the programs that were in place in 
the Federal Government; and to do that it doesn't take much language. 
In fact, the bill was two short pages. If you had a little larger page, 
it would be one page. Because all it says in legal terms is we will 
continue to spend the amount of money that we spent last year. That 
bill runs the government spending through February 15.
  So something else had to be done; and the other side said, we will do 
a continuing resolution. We will continue spending money at the same 
rate on the same programs because their committees haven't got up and 
running. They cannot figure out exactly what the process ought to be to 
allow people to have input into it, so we will just have a continuing 
resolution. So they presented their, quote, continuing resolution.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, that continuing resolution I have here, this H.J. 
Res, is 137 pages long.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a fact. It is not an opinion, that is a fact.
  Now the continuing resolution that could continue the spending for 
our Nation, responsible spending at the lowest possible level given the 
amount of spending that has occurred over the past number of months of 
this fiscal year, could just be continued with a two-page resolution 
that says, yes, indeed, we will continue that spending.
  In fact, what the majority party has done is passed a 137-page 
omnibus bill. It is not a continuing resolution in spite of what they 
say. The reason that is important is the process was not in place to 
allow input by almost anybody. Not just Republicans, but Democrats as 
well, and certainly freshmen Democrats, had no input into the process.
  What is in this bill is all sorts of special spending, picking 
winners and losers and rewarding friends in this bill that the other 
side, the Democrat majority side, says is just a continuing resolution.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we have some principles on our side, and one of 
them is that no process deserves more public scrutiny than the way in 
which the hard-earned taxpayer money is spent. No process deserves more 
scrutiny than the way in which hard-earned taxpayer money is spent.
  In fact, what happened today is the spending or the concurrence by 
the House of Representatives, the vast majority of them being Democrat, 
that we would spend $463 billion, that is with a ``B'', Mr. Speaker, 
$463 billion on the omnibus bill that they have presented.
  And there are so many things that we would like to talk about tonight 
that relate to process and to policy, and I am pleased to be joined by 
good friends who will highlight some of those items.
  A member of the Official Truth Squad, a Member who brings highlight 
and honesty to our deliberations joins me this evening, the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn). I appreciate your being with us, and I 
look forward to your comments.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. He 
does such a wonderful job of pulling the Truth Squad together and 
helping us focus on the issues that are important to our constituents 
and of concern to our constituents and of concern to all Americans.
  Certainly the process that we have seen carried out here in the House 
of Representatives is one that causes us concern. For those of us who 
respect regular order, who respect the integrity of the House, to see 
an omnibus spending bill go straight from the drafting table of a 
couple of Members, one in the Senate and one in the House, and then 
come directly to the floor for a vote is of tremendous concern.

                              {time}  1715

  We all know that our Nation has a process that was laid forth in the 
founding of this Nation, a process by which this body would conduct its 
business on behalf of the people, the people's House. Today, as I heard 
some of my colleagues across the aisle talk about how we had returned 
to regular order, I thought, oh, my goodness, I do not think this is 
what people had in mind.
  I really do not think, Mr. Speaker, that when people went to the 
polls in November and voted and said we want to see a change in things, 
we want greater accountability, we want greater transparency and we are 
frustrated with what we have seen in Washington. I do not think this is 
what they had in mind, and certainly we would hope this is not the 
process that the Democrat majority will follow as they talk about what 
is going to be regular order.
  What the gentleman from Georgia just said about the omnibus is so 
very true. As he said, this is a continuing resolution. It requires two 
sheets of paper. It is a total of about 40 lines of type. That is it. 
It just says we abide by the budget that was in place in 2006. Our 
constituents may remember that the budget that we passed in 2006 was 
the budget that made 1 percent across-the-board reductions in spending, 
1 percent. It was a $40 billion savings to the American people.
  Now, the budget, this omnibus budget, this 137 pages is going to end 
up spending about $17 billion more. So they are reducing and doing away 
with the savings that we worked hard to put in place.
  The thing that is of tremendous concern to me, and I am so delighted 
to see the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) who is such an 
advocate for our military and is really, having chaired our Armed 
Services Committee, speaks so well to that issue and I know he is going 
to talk about it, but it just breaks my heart to know that our National 
Guard troops and our troops at Ft. Campbell, which is located in my 
district, are going to have far less money for quality of life because 
of the actions that were taken in this budget and the way in this 
budget, in this document, H.J. Res. 20, and people can go online and 
pull this up and look, and how they have taken from military quality of 
life, money that should be going to our military families and have 
moved that to other departments; how they took money from our military 
quality of life, $50 million, and that is given to the Palestinian 
Authority. That is something that with my constituents has certainly 
raised a lot of questions.
  The thing that interested me when it came to the issue of the 
earmarks was they had said, oh, no earmarks are going to be in this 
budget, and then I found out that, well, there were earmarks that were 
in the budget. Nevada seems to have earmarks. Other States seem to have 
some curious earmarks that are left in there, but then there are funds 
that are turned back to the agencies.
  I said, well, how does this money get spent? Is it done with letters 
of instruction? How is it done? What I found out was that the process 
that they would revert to, and I guess this is regular order, would be 
the process before money started being earmarked. It is where you pick 
up the phone and you call the agency and say let me tell you how I 
think we need to spend that money.
  My constituents long ago said they did not want the activities of 
smoke-filled rooms. They wanted more transparency and the American 
people wanted to see greater accountability, and I think that we will 
continue to hear from our constituents. They want a smaller budget that 
is going to be more responsible of their money. This is not our money. 
It is the taxpayers' money. Government does not have a revenue problem. 
With the tax reductions that have been passed, the Federal Government 
has brought in more money than ever.
  What government has is a spending problem. It has a priority problem, 
and this big, bloated budget that was passed today is a budget that 
will continue to fund a bloated bureaucracy that just cannot get enough 
of our constituents' money.
  I was disappointed today with the actions of the majority. I was 
disappointed in how they chose to carry it out. I do hope that we see a 
change in the way they carried forth, and to the gentleman from 
Georgia, I will tell you, I hope that we continue to see a return to a 
respect for how we address the people's business in this House.
  We talked some about one man, one vote and the sanctity of that and 
the importance of that, and I do hope that

[[Page H1132]]

everyone will continue to keep their focus on being certain that we 
respect that for our constituents.
  I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you so much. I appreciate your 
perspective and your insight and your wonderful words about 
accountability, because that is really what it is all about, Mr. 
Speaker. It is about accountability. It is about holding people here in 
this House accountable for what they said they were going to do.
  Elections are wonderful things. Every 2 years, the American people 
get to go to the polls and they get to say we like how things are going 
and we want to support that or we think there ought to be a change. In 
November of last year, the American people voted for change, but I do 
not believe, as I know my good friend from Tennessee does not believe, 
that the American people voted for higher spending or greater deficits, 
which is what the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives 
today adopted.
  I do know also that they did not vote to decrease money for our armed 
services, for our military men and women who are working as hard as 
they can, day and night, to make certain they keep us safe. In fact, 
what they have done indeed with this bill that was adopted today is to 
decrease the amount of revenue available for our fighting men and women 
and especially the base realignment and closure which is what gives the 
efficiency to the system.
  Nobody knows about that better than the former chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee than my good friend from California, the honorable 
Duncan Hunter, and I appreciate so much his taking part in this hour 
this evening. I look forward to your comments.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Georgia for 
letting me come in and offer something that I did not see offered by 
the Democrat side in this debate, which was the Army's position on this 
continuing resolution.
  In fact, they posited this continuing resolution as motherhood, apple 
pie and everything that we need for a strong national defense, and they 
invoked the interest of American veterans. What they did not tell 
American veterans was that the Army sees this as a real problem and a 
real cut in benefits, and things that would help the active Army come 
in this defense realignment, this base realignment with divisions 
coming back to the United States, divisions like the big red one coming 
back to Ft. Riley, Kansas, and lots of others and lots of quality-of-
life programs for the men and women of the armed services and for their 
families.
  What we did not see coming from the Democrat side of the aisle was 
the fact that they reached over with one hand to give money to one 
group of servicemembers of veterans; they reached over and scooped 
money out of the cash register that would accrue to the benefit of 
another group, a very important people, and this is the men and women 
who wear the uniform of the United States.
  So let me give you the Army's perspective as manifested in a letter 
from Lieutenant General David Melcher, United States Army, Military 
Deputy for Budget, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial 
Management and Comptroller. He says this:
  ``You recently requested a quick summary of Base Realignment and 
Closure impacts to the Army as proposed in the Joint Resolution, H.J. 
Res. 20.'' That is the resolution that the Democrat side of the aisle 
just passed. ``The attached information accurately portrays these 
impacts. The following identifies key Army concerns:
  One, ``Army will not begin with approximately $2 billion of our BRAC 
program, which is a key enabler to grow and position the Army; this 
leaves more than half of our fiscal year 2007 BRAC program 
unexecutable.''
  Number 2, ``Operational Impact on the Training, Mobilization and 
Deployment of Forces in support of the Global War on Terrorism.'' For 
some reason, the Democrat side of the aisle did not quite want to show 
that statement by the U.S. Army, that their bill that they passed, 
their continuing resolution, would, in fact, impact training, 
mobilization and deployment of forces in support of the global war on 
terrorism.
  Number 3, ``Unravels the Army's synchronized stationing and BRAC 
plan, puts growth of the Army, stationing, and BRAC at risk.'' That 
means this: We are bringing back divisions from around the world. 
Places like Germany are now going to see movement in which American 
divisions are going to come back, and they are going to be repositioned 
in the United States. That means you got to go out and build barracks. 
You have got to go out and build single family housing. You have got to 
put a lot of construction in place. The Democrat majority reached out 
and took away part of that money.
  Number 4, ``Delays transformation of Reserve Component, has 
operational consequences.'' We are involved in two shooting wars, and 
we have now done something that has operational consequences.
  Number 5, ``Breaks the Nation's obligation to provide Soldiers and 
Families adequate quality of life, affects the All Volunteer Force,'' 
something we did not hear from the other side of the aisle.
  Number 6, ``Delays capital investment and inhibits economic 
development, affects local jobs and growth across the U.S.'' Over 
80,000 jobs affected by what they just did.
  And lastly, ``Limits predictability and military construction 
acquisition efficiencies, results in higher construction costs.''
  So, as we see costs going through the roof, the contractors can say, 
yep, we were going to build that single family housing for those 
military families but you guys reached in, took a bunch of the money 
out; we had to give a stop work order to our crews, and now we are 
going to charge you, the American taxpayers, more money.
  I have got another executive summary here that goes into more detail, 
and I thought it might just be good to give a few of the examples of 
this money that was cut by the Democrat majority, which they skipped 
over very quickly, and tell the American people a few details about 
these projects that they moved off the table with one push of the hand.
  Training ranges, command and control, training barracks, 19 projects, 
$560 million, including training facilities at Fort Bliss, Texas; 
maneuver training at Fort Benning, Georgia; air defense artillery at 
Fort Sill; and battlefield trauma lab at Fort Sam Houston. In fact, I 
have been to the battlefield trauma lab. That is where we train our 
combat medics to save lives in the war fighting theaters in Afghanistan 
and Iraq.
  Cannot start communications/electronics, RD&E, center phase one at 
APG, that is Aberdeen Proving Ground, to close Fort Monmouth and 
support the global war on terrorism.
  Cannot start on human resources command at Fort Knox, Kentucky; 
recruiting facilities at Redstone Arsenal; power projection platform at 
Ft. Riley or other operational projects at Shaw Air Force Base, Benning 
and Leavenworth.
  Armed Forces reserve centers, 27 projects, $700 million in 16 States.
  Examples of fiscal year 2007 BRAC quality of life requirements, eight 
projects, youth and child development centers, Benning, Riley, Bliss, 
Sam Houston; dental clinics, Bliss, Sam Houston; medical clinic, Ft. 
Riley, Kansas. That is where the big red one is returning from Europe.
  All fiscal year 2007 BRAC projects and follow-on MILCON are 
synchronized with modular force build, operational rotations, BRAC and 
GDPR.
  What that means is that we are now trying to produce some 42 combat 
brigades, and we are trying to modularize them so they have the same 
equipment, they have got the same training, so that they are 
interchangeable so you can move out with a combat fighting force and 
you can move a brigade in from another area and you can have that from 
another particular division and that brigade is interchangeable. It 
does not have equipment that is noninteroperable, and it means you can 
fight more effectively and more consistently.

                              {time}  1730

  That modularity has been hampered by these cuts. So these are the 
cuts that were made by the Democrat majority, pushed off the table, 
projects pushed off the table with one push of

[[Page H1133]]

the hand and with barely a mention on the Democrat side.
  So I would just say, my friend from Georgia, glad you got that sign 
up there, Official Truth Squad. You know, I think sometimes it is 
important to know the entire story. That is a part of the real story 
about what we did today.
  I thank the gentleman for letting me come down and talk a little bit 
about the Army's position and the Army's position against the cuts that 
were manifested in this continuing resolution.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for his insight. Nobody 
knows more about these issues than you and I. I appreciate you bringing 
that perspective.
  You mention a number of items. You said there was barely a mention 
about this. I was listening pretty closely. I didn't hear a single word 
about it from the other side that talked about the cuts that are in 
place.
  Mr. HUNTER. No.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. And that things were skipped over quickly. They 
were. We had 1 hour of debate on a $463 billion appropriations bill. 
Phenomenal. Phenomenal when you think about it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Let me tell you something.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Please.
  Mr. HUNTER. The other side tried to appeal to the hearts of American 
veterans. I am a veteran. But you know something else? I have a son who 
just did 4 years of active duty with the U.S. Marine Corps, trained at 
some of these bases that we are talking about, witnessed and was 
training sometimes in facilities that were somewhat deficient, that 
needed to be improved.
  I will bet you, if you look in the family of every American veteran 
that the other side was playing to, in passing the CR and saying we are 
doing good things for you guys, for you old guys like me, they were not 
doing good things for our sons. Because our sons are on active duty 
right now. They need to have that quality of life for our military 
families.
  I can remember being with my son as Lynne and I would follow them 
around the United States, as a lot of military moms and dads do, trying 
desperately to get a little time with our grandchildren, and we would 
be often in substandard housing. We would see the efforts that had been 
undertaken by DOD to upgrade housing and to upgrade facilities and to 
make life better for families. A lot of those programs are in those 
cuts that the Democrats side of the aisle just made.
  So if you are playing to us old veterans, remember, there is another 
thing that is very near and dear to us old veterans, and that is our 
kids who are on active duty or recently on active duty. We are 
concerned about them. So don't take away from them to give to us on the 
basis that we will then appreciate it, and we will appreciate them, and 
we somehow will not look at the reductions that they made to the active 
force. The active force and its benefits are very, very important to 
every veteran.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Those are 
facts.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask to insert in the Record the letter from 
Lieutenant General Melcher.
         Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary 
           of the Army,
                                 Washington, DC, January 31, 2007.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hunter: Sir, you recently requested a 
     quick summary of Base Realignment and Closure impacts to the 
     Army as proposed in the Joint Resolution H.J. Res. 20. The 
     attached information accurately portrays these impacts. The 
     following identifies key Army concerns:
       Army will not begin with approximately $2.0 B of our BRAC 
     program which is a key enabler to grow and position the Army; 
     this leaves more than half of our FY07 BRAC program (56%) 
     unexecutable
       Operational impact on the Training, Mobilization, and 
     Deployment of Forces in support of the Global War on 
     Terrorism
       Unravels the Army's synchronized stationing and BRAC plan--
     puts growth of the Army, stationing, and BRAC at risk .
       Delays transformation of Reserve Component--has operational 
     consequences
       Breaks the Nation's obligation to provide Soldiers and 
     Families adequate quality of life--affects the All Volunteer 
     Force
       Delays capital investment and inhibits economic 
     development--affects local jobs and growth across the U.S. 
     (over 80,000 jobs)
       Limits predictability and military construction acquisition 
     efficiencies--results in higher construction costs
       I trust this information is helpful.
           Sincerely,
     David F. Melcher,
       Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Military Deputy for Budget, 
     Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and 
     Comptroller.

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I also want to highlight a 
statement in a letter from the Office of Management and Budget from the 
Executive Office of the President about these BRAC closings, because I 
think that it highlights one of the very egregious activities that 
occurred in passing this omnibus, this appropriations bill, that the 
Democrat majority did today.
  It says, quote, the President's budget requested $5.6 billion to 
implement the recommendations of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission.
  That is something that all of us had voted on here on the floor of 
the House.
  The administration strongly opposes the committee's reduction of $3.1 
billion from the President's request.
  Remember, this is $3.1 billion cut out of a $5.6 billion 
appropriation.
  This will, quote, significantly delay BRAC implementation, increase 
the risk that the Department of Defense would not meet its statutory 
deadline to implement BRAC, reduce BRAC savings, delay or postpone 
scheduled redeployments of military personnel.
  Did you hear that? Delay or postpone scheduled redeployments of 
military personnel and their overseas stations to the United States and 
negatively impact many specific plans in response to BRAC.
  So, in addition to the challenges and the difficulties that we have 
in trying to make certain that our men and women have anything at their 
resource to be able to fight this global war on terror, I doubt that 
anybody on the other side of the aisle, when they ran for office last 
November, said, boy, I sure want to cut the military's budget as they 
fight the global war on terror. I doubt that happened, but, in fact, 
that is exactly what happened on the floor of the House today.
  What we are here to do today, as The Official Truth Squad, is to make 
certain that we hold people accountable. There are people watching. 
There are people listening. The American people know that there are two 
different philosophies of how government ought to work. We have a 
philosophy that it ought to be efficient, that it ought to be as small 
as possible, that it ought to respect individuals, that it ought to 
strongly support the global war on terror in our military.
  Our good friends on the other side of the aisle oftentimes talk like 
that. But when it gets right down to votes, that is not how they vote. 
We are here today to bring some facts to the issue and some 
accountability.
  I am so pleased to be joined by my good friend from Texas, who was 
past budget chairman for the Republican Study Committee during the last 
term and this year has assumed the helm of the Chair of the Republican 
Study Committee, I think one of the finest groups of individuals in 
this Congress, the individuals who are as concerned as anybody that I 
know about economic responsibility, financial responsibility, and 
accountability for this Congress.
  I thank you for joining us this evening and look forward to your 
comments.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman, and I certainly appreciate his 
great work as a Member from Georgia. We particularly participate his 
participation in the Republican Study Committee, the conservative 
caucus within this caucus.
  It has been a rather interesting day here on the House floor. I 
didn't know that it was possible, but apparently our Democrat 
colleagues created a new record in the House. Now, I am still doing my 
homework. Maybe they just came in second or third place. But if I did 
my homework correctly, never in the history of America has a Congress 
spent more money with less accountability than this Democrat Congress 
did today just a few hours ago, $463 billion spent in 1 hour, 1 hour of 
debate to spend $463 billion.
  Now, I have been a Member of Congress for a while, but, ladies and 
gentlemen, that is still real money. That

[[Page H1134]]

is $7.7 billion per minute that this Democrat majority managed to 
spend. We just heard from the distinguished ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee. Apparently, they didn't spend it very well. They 
seemed to have forgotten the war fighter and his quality of life when 
they were putting this massive spending bill together.
  Now, earlier, as the Democrats took control of the institution, and 
elections have consequences, I understand that, they won fair and 
square, but Speaker Pelosi is on the record shortly after the election 
saying, quote, Democrats believe we must return to accountability by 
restoring fiscal discipline and eliminating, eliminating, deficit 
spending. Now this is the Democrat leader, the Speaker of the House, 
telling the American people that this was their intention. So now we 
spend $463 billion in 1 hour.
  Mr. Speaker, families all across America will spend more time 
deliberating on the purchase of a washer and dryer than this 
institution did in spending $463 billion of their money, their hard-
earned money. It is somewhat mind-boggling to spend that much money 
with such little accountability.
  Now, let's talk about the Speaker telling the American people that 
she and the Democrats were going to eliminate deficit spending.
  Well, as this bill passed earlier today, if the Senate takes it up, 
all of a sudden every American's share of the public debt has gone from 
$28,860 to $30,399. Now, I didn't major in math at Texas A&M 
University, but I can figure out, if you are trying to eliminate 
deficit spending, you are headed in the wrong direction, which makes me 
kind of question why you passed this bill in the first place.
  Now, the American people were led to believe that this body was going 
to pass something called a continuing resolution. Now, I understand 
that is kind of inside baseball, but what it says is, you know, we are 
going to continue government at the same funding level. There are 
families all across America who face hardships who have to actually get 
by on less. A continuing resolution actually says, we are going to, 
frankly, grow government under the baseline, what we did last year.
  Had this institution done it, which is what they led the American 
people to believe, we would have had a continuing resolution which, by 
the way, fits on a single piece of paper. Instead, we had a 150 page, I 
believe it was 150 pages, of what we call an omnibus, everything thrown 
into a massive spending bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats told us, they led us to believe we were 
going to have this continuing resolution. We end up with this omnibus. 
They tell us we are going to eliminate deficit spending. Instead, they 
increased deficit spending. They tell us they are going to have 
accountability; and, instead, we spend 1 hour, 1 hour debating the 
expenditure of $463 billion.
  Let me tell you what else they told us. They told us there would be 
no earmarks. You know, these are these little perks that Members of 
Congress take for their own district. Well, at last count, there was 
near 30 earmarks. Now, maybe they are good earmarks, maybe they are bad 
earmarks, but don't tell us there aren't going to be any earmarks in 
the bill and then put them there.
  I mean, they are the poster children, too often. They are the poster 
children of fiscal irresponsibility. We have the golden oldie here. The 
rain forest in Iowa has made another appearance here. Now somebody 
earlier today said, well, that is a Republican earmark. Well, at least 
they acknowledge that earmarks were in the bill.
  Last I looked, the Democrats have a majority in the House; they have 
a majority in the Senate. Obviously, it would not be in the bill unless 
Democrats wanted it in the bill.
  We also had this institution pass a continuing resolution instead of 
this omnibus. Also, we would have saved $6.2 billion of American 
families' money. That is what would have happened had the Democrat 
majority done what they told the American people they were going to do. 
That is $6.2 billion that could have been applied to, again, quote, 
unquote, eliminating deficit spending.
  So they had an opportunity to put their actions where their words 
were, and they didn't do it. They had extra money, and they spent it.
  Again, as the gentleman from California illuminated, they didn't 
spend it very well. They certainly didn't consider the quality of life 
for the war fighter when they were putting together this omnibus.
  Also, we were told there would not be any gimmicks. We would have 
accountability. Well, we look in here and there is gimmicks. There is 
$3.5 billion here. Now, this is inside baseball, I admit it, but I have 
served on the Budget Committee for 4 years, and I am starting to 
recognize these gimmicks.
  But they put $3.5 billion here by rescinding contract authority for 
highway programs without decreasing what we call obligation 
limitations. Then, again, I know that is inside baseball. But let me 
tell you, what happens is there is no savings. They are claiming 
savings where there are none.
  They also make a one-time change, a one-year change in what we call 
entitlement spending. Again, it is a trick. It is smoke and mirrors. It 
will not be there.
  Where is the accountability? I am looking for it. Clearly, we need 
that magnifying glass of The Official Truth Squad, because nobody can 
find the vaunted Democrat accountability that we were told would be 
here.
  There is a better way. We can have true fiscal accountability.
  Another gentleman, a colleague of mine from California (Mr. 
Campbell), offered an amendment that would have given us that 
continuing resolution that would have saved us $6.2 billion that would 
have done what the Democrats told the American people they were going 
to do. But their Rules Committee said, no, we are not going to allow 
that one. That is kind of a dicey vote. That one was never allowed on 
the floor, the one that would actually use $6.2 billion to help reduce 
this deficit.
  Another thing we can do is embrace the President's call for a 
balanced budget in 5 years without raising taxes. Now, that is true 
fiscal responsibility. I would hope that all Members of this Congress 
could sign up for that program.
  Now, Democrats will tell us that all the tax relief that was passed 
on our watch is the source of every fiscal problem known to mankind. 
Well, as a member of the Budget Committee, we have now received 
testimony from the head of the GAO, the Government Accountability 
Office, we have received testimony from the head of the Congressional 
Budget Office. It is not what we hear from them.

                              {time}  1745

  What we hear, Mr. Speaker, is that until we do something to help 
reform entitlement spending and Medicare and Medicaid and Social 
Security and work on a bipartisan basis to get better retirement 
security, better health care at a lower cost, that is the fiscal 
challenge to America.
  And, by the way, there is an inconvenient fact for our Democrat 
colleagues, and that inconvenient fact is we have cut marginal rates. 
We have cut capital gains. And guess what? We have more tax revenue 
than we have had in the entire history of America. If you allow the 
American people to keep more of what they earn, they will save it. They 
will invest it. They will go out and expand businesses. They will 
create small businesses. They will put out a new barbecue stand. They 
will do a new transmission repair shop. And now we have created over 7 
million new jobs with a future.
  Now, I know maybe their goal for America is 7 million new welfare 
checks. But the Republican goal for America was 7 million new 
paychecks. And under our watch, that is what we achieved. Seven million 
new paychecks and the greatest amount of tax revenue that we have had 
in the history of America. We are awash in tax revenue. That is why the 
deficit is coming down.
  Now, I am not here to tell you that every time you design tax relief 
that it creates more tax revenue, but if you do it right, particularly 
if you put it on the side of helping working families and helping 
entrepreneurs to save and invest, it will more than pay for itself, and 
that is what has been done here. But now, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats 
want to take that tax relief away. They say it is bad. They want to 
take the 7 million jobs away. And what is really humorous is that they 
want to

[[Page H1135]]

take really the tax revenue away that this explosion of economic 
activity has created in the first place.
  So, Mr. Speaker, there are many ways that we can embrace true fiscal 
responsibility. But to spend $463 billion of the people's money with no 
hearing, with almost no debate, in 1 hour, to set the land speed record 
for spending money in the shortest period of time, today the Democrats 
get the gold medal, the gold medal, in that Olympic competition. Never 
has more money been spent in less time than today. So how they expect 
to live up to Speaker Pelosi's goal of eliminating deficit spending, 
restoring fiscal discipline, and return to accountability, I suggest 
they enter a different Olympics and try to spend less money with more 
accountability, and that is something that the American people could 
truly respect.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas so much 
for his wonderful cogent comments. And talking about the individuals on 
the other side of the aisle, who have indeed said one thing and then 
come here and done another, one would think that they are beginning to 
foster a culture of hypocrisy. That kind of has a little ring to it 
that rings true on the other side of the aisle.
  I do want to thank you as well for your comments about tax revenue. 
Sometimes a picture tells a better story than words, although your 
words were cogent and so appropriate.
  But this graph helps me understand the benefits of tax decreases, Mr. 
Speaker. When you decrease taxes, which is what we did here in Congress 
in 2001 and 2003, this line here is revenue to the Federal Government 
and what happened was that the revenue was going down, but we decreased 
taxes appropriately, as the gentleman from Texas said, and what happens 
is that the revenue goes up. The Federal Government, in fact, gets more 
revenue because there is more economic activity, more economic 
vitality.
  We have touched on so many things tonight. My good friend from 
Virginia has joined us. We are running a little short on time, but I do 
want to make certain that you get an opportunity to join us for the 
Official Truth Squad and make some comments possibly about BRAC.
  My good friend from Virginia, Thelma Drake, is just so wonderfully 
active here in Congress and so cogent and appropriate on issues of the 
military, representing the military installations in southeast 
Virginia.
  So I welcome you and look forward to your comments.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
recognizing me tonight, and I would like to apologize for being late 
for your hour. But as I was coming over here today, I was connected by 
my office to a constituent who is serving in Iraq right now. I stood 
out in that hallway just beyond those doors and had a conversation with 
him with much better reception than I usually get on a local call from 
my cell phone. So it was absolutely remarkable, and I just wanted to 
share with you a little bit of what he said.
  First of all, he is a contracting officer working with our 
reconstruction teams. I asked him, because we often hear that we are 
not employing Iraqis, that these are all major companies that are doing 
this work. He was quite surprised that I asked that question. He said 
that we have an ``Iraqi First'' program, and all jobs are offered first 
to Iraqi companies and to Iraqis, and if they can't perform that job, 
then other companies from other countries are brought in. They are 
completely screened. He even has an Iraqi who works with him on staff.
  I asked if he had a message for us tonight. And the answer was that 
he asked us not to forget them.
  I think that brings up the issue you just mentioned, Mr. Price, that 
what just happened today on the House floor. And what we know and the 
Department of Defense is now putting out information that there was a 
$3 billion reduction in the funds that have been appropriated in the 
bills that both of these bodies had passed for 2007. Not for those but 
for the military construction, the bills that the House had passed and 
had not been passed by the Senate.
  So we heard on the floor here today that that was not a reduction. It 
was actually an increase. That is not the way that this is being 
viewed, and it is not the impact that it would have on people who are 
serving today.
  But Mr. Price and Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that there is no 
one in America, no one in Congress that wants America to be at war. 
There is no President that wants to be a war President. And I have said 
to people if I believed this war we are engaged in was about democracy 
in Iraq or about a people who have fought each other for centuries, I 
would oppose this war, too.
  But it is a war about our civilization with an enemy who has vowed to 
kill us and to end our way of life, an enemy who has attacked us and 
who works and plots constantly to attack us again. I truly believe if 
Americans just had the facts that they would make the right decision.
  My constituent said it very clearly. He said we cannot let this enemy 
win. And every Iraqi that I have ever talked with, this is something 
America never hears and I think if they did hear it, it would make a 
difference, but from President Talabani on down, whether they are 
Iraqis I have met when I have been on trips there or Iraqis here, they 
all say, ``we are grateful to America for our freedom.'' And we, as 
Americans, never get to hear that.
  The real question is what are our options? To let this enemy win and 
to say that they defeated the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans 
in Iraq? What would that do to us? What would that do to our allies, 
and who would ever believe us again?
  And if we were to make that decision and to allow this enemy to win 
and pull our troops out of Iraq before the Iraqis are ready to govern 
and secure themselves, the real question is how will we manage the cost 
of this defeat? How will we manage the murder of all those Iraqis who 
have joined in the freedom of Iraq, the person who was working for my 
constituent right now, those who have served in government, in the 
police, in the Iraqi security forces?
  Thank you for yielding. I know you have a lot to talk about, and I 
appreciate the work that you are doing on the floor.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you ever so much, Congresswoman Drake. We 
appreciate your heartfelt words and the message from your constituent 
and that perspective on what truly is a portion of this global war on 
terror. The incredible importance of making certain that we as a 
Congress and we as a people support our men and women at every turn. So 
I thank you very, very much.
  And that highlights what happened today on this floor about the 
appropriations bill, the omnibus bill, that the other side of the 
aisle, the Democrat majority, passed. And, in fact, what they have done 
is made it more difficult for our military to function. We have heard a 
letter from a lieutenant general in the Army about that. We heard from 
our own administration about that, about how it makes it more 
difficult. And we heard from our good friend from Texas about the 
Olympics award that the Democrats won today by spending more money in 1 
hour than any Congress in the history of the Nation. And, again, it 
would be humorous if it weren't so serious, Mr. Speaker. It would be 
humorous if it weren't so serious.
  And I am so pleased to be joined by a good friend from Florida, 
Congressman Mica, who has some interesting perspective on what went on 
here today on the floor of the House.
  I appreciate your coming and bringing some accountability to what 
occurred today.
  Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Price, for yielding to me. Also, I want to 
thank you for the nights that you have spent on the floor during this 
session of Congress, the 110th, trying to bring the truth and also 
facts to the American people that are so important.
  You said that I would talk tonight a little bit about my perspective, 
and I have an interesting family history. I have a brother who served 
as a Democratic Member of Congress from 1978 to 1988 here in the House 
of Representatives, Dan Mica; another brother, a Democrat, who served 
as an aid to Laughton Childs and to former Congressman Brademas. We are 
the first two Members and brothers to be from different political 
parties since 1889.

[[Page H1136]]

Almost everybody else is from the same party.
  I say that because I truly am from a bipartisan family. When I came 
here some 14 years ago, we were in the minority, Mr. Speaker. And I 
served 2 years in the minority, and I want to tell you that I was 
treated very fairly by some of the Members of the majority. I will even 
cite Mr. Ed Towns of New York, who took me in as a freshman new Member, 
gave me every opportunity to participate, recognized me. I was a full 
participant as a minority Member.
  There were others who I will not name who did not allow me not to 
speak, who actually told me to be quiet, and who actually adjourned 
meetings, so I didn't have the opportunity to speak or participate. So 
I saw how bipartisanship and I saw how dictatorial rule works. And for 
some 12 years, the good Lord gave me the opportunity to be chairman of 
three subcommittees over 12 years. So I always employed the golden 
rule, the Ed Towns rule, of treating everybody fairly.
  I say that in context because today is January 31 and this month, the 
beginning of this Congress, is one of the saddest hours in the history 
of the Congress of the United States, at least that I am familiar with 
or that I have read about.
  Now, we started here with the swearing in of Nancy Pelosi. I am an 
Italian American. I was proud of Nancy Pelosi's being the first Italian 
American and woman to take that position, and I think we were all very 
pleased for her on both sides of the aisle and congratulated her.
  But then began, unfortunately, the saddest chapter in the history of 
Congress with the passage of six major pieces of legislation without 
the Congress even being organized, without the committees being 
organized, without one of those pieces of legislation going through the 
committee process.
  What an incredible insult to the people of America who just finished 
an election. They elected us as representatives, 435. We, in turn, 
elected a new Speaker of the House, and the entire democratic process 
was obliterated. It has been the saddest month in the history of the 
United States Congress. Six major measures.
  And the irony, I sat here in the week of celebrating and honoring 
Martin Luther King, one of the great civil rights leaders of our time, 
whose sole goal was to give rights to the minority that they had been 
denied. And the new majority completely obliterated in that week the 
rights of the minority. It was one of the saddest chapters I have seen. 
So all of their measures, all of them, are just floating out there. The 
other body hasn't taken them up. They were passed while trampling on 
the rights of the minority.
  There are men and women fighting today, tonight, tomorrow for those 
rights to protect the minority. This is not Bolivia. This is not 
Venezuela. This is not Cuba, where someone takes power and tramples on 
the rights of the minority. This is the United States of America, and 
every representative should have the opportunity to participate in that 
democratic process. Again, I am just offended.
  And then the final offense today, the 31st, to pass the largest 
spending measure in the history of Congress in one sole bill without 
consultation, without participation, without the democratic process is 
the ultimate insult to the citizens of the United States, who expect a 
representative form of government, and to the Congress, to the rights 
of the minority.

                              {time}  1800

  This was a $463 billion earmark. And we just got through an election 
in which the Republicans were chided for passing earmarks in the 
stealth of the night, for which the Democrats also were offenders. We 
paid a penalty. We lost the majority.
  But you do not pass a bill of that size without the ability of even 
to participate in this bill, this $463 billion earmark, the most costly 
in the history.
  Now they think they pulled one over on everybody. But I guarantee 
you. I guarantee in that bill, since no one had a chance to see it or 
participate in it, they will find day after day embarrassing provisions 
that we did not have an opportunity to take out, to adjust, to correct.
  So they will pay the price. When you do things in the stealth of the 
night, when you illegitimately conduct the process of Government, you 
will pay the penalty. We paid the penalty. They will pay the penalty. 
Marital law is not the way this Congress was intended to run.
  This should be, in fact, bipartisan. Bipartisan means two working 
together. I am committed to that. I will continue to be committed to 
working that way. I come from, as I said, a bipartisan family; and we 
have got to work together.
  So I hope today, January 31, 2007, a very sad day, ending of a sad 
chapter in the history, mark my words. This will go down in the history 
of this Congress as one of the darkest hours ever.
  I thank you.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida. I appreciate so much his emotion and his passion and his 
perspective.
  As you are living through these times, it is oftentimes difficult to 
get people to pay attention to what truly are historic occurrences, and 
I share with you that disappointment and sadness. I truly do.
  Having served in a legislative body at the State level and seeing how 
bipartisanship can work and seeing how democracy truly is supposed to 
work, this has been a disappointing month. It has been a disappointing 
month, because most of what you can talk about in terms of getting your 
arms around where the problem is is process. I talked about that at the 
beginning of this hour, Mr. Speaker, and I mention that the reason that 
process is so important is because that is what enables the minority to 
have participation. But not just the minority. It enables every single 
Member of this House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, as you well know, every single Member represents 
approximately the same number of people. We go to great pains to make 
certain that districts are basically of equal size every 10 years 
through the census process and through redistricting; and we do that 
because each individual in this body, each Member of this body, 
represents basically the same number of people and therefore should 
have essentially the same say in the process and in the deliberation.
  Some folks have called this month the death of deliberation, and that 
truly has been. That is disappointing. That is very saddening for all 
of us whose constituents, whose American citizen constituents who go to 
the polls and vote, do indeed express their will to us.
  If we are unable to express their will through this process here, 
then they are muted, they are silenced, they are disenfranchised; and 
that, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest is an unfair process, is a wrong 
process and is an undemocratic process. It doesn't have to be that way.
  So I encourage my good friends on the other side of the aisle, and I 
know some of them are feeling pained by some of the decisions that 
their leadership has made over this past month, and I encourage them to 
continue to work for a process that will allow for the inclusion of 
all.
  Because, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, we do not have 
Republican challenges or Democrat challenges, we have American 
challenges. The American people send us here to take care of those 
challenges and put forward the best solutions, and the best solutions 
come when all of us are involved in that process.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle in a very positive way as we move forward and do what is best and 
what is right on behalf of the American people.
  I want to thank my leadership once again for the opportunity to spend 
this hour on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________