[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.
____________________