[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3071-3077]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Davis of Kentucky). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Price) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak before the House tonight. I want to thank the leadership for 
allowing me to participate in this hour. I thank the conference chair, 
Congresswoman Pryce, for her leadership.
  And I want to come tonight with a number of colleagues, and we come 
with what we call the Official Truth Squad. And we call it that because 
a group of freshman Congressmen, in our class there are 25 or so 
freshman Congressman, who have now served in Congress for about 15 
months, and when we get together on a regular basis, one of the 
overarching concerns that we voice to each other over and over and over 
again was the tone in Washington and the remarkable partisanship in 
Washington. And we kind of brainstormed about what could we do to 
change that tone, to make a difference.
  And so we came up with the Official Truth Squad. And we try to come 
every evening and share with the American people what we believe to be 
the truthful situation on whatever the topic is.
  This instance tonight we are going to talk a little bit about the 
economy in just a short time. But I think what you have heard, Mr. 
Speaker, over the last hour, and much of it veiled in some very kind 
words, but what you have heard is a clear example of the politics of 
division. And it is the politics of division that many of our friends 
on the other side of the aisle seem to be wedded to, and I cannot tell 
you why that is.
  It disturbs me. It is very distressing, because I think that it does 
not serve the greater purpose of why we are all here, why we are all 
elected to Congress, to try to solve the remarkable challenges that we 
have.
  But the politics of division is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is pitting 
one group against another in some really political way that really does 
not make a whole lot of sense. But it is appealing to people's lowest 
common denominator. It is appealing to their fears and to their basic 
instinct, and that, again, does a great disservice to us as a Nation.
  I have quoted on this floor before something that I have attributed 
to President Abraham Lincoln. And I was so pleased that there are folks 
who are out there and interested in what we are talking about. And I 
stand corrected on that. It was felt to be consistent with President 
Lincoln's philosophy, but, in fact, it is attributable to Reverend 
William Boetcker, who was a leader and a public speaker in America born 
in 1873, died in 1962.

                              {time}  2100

  He talked about the politics of division. He talked about it a lot. 
He talked about the need for appropriate discourse and a social 
philosophy that he felt was consistent with President Lincoln's, and it 
has been confused with that in the past.
  So I wish to share that with you again tonight, Mr. Speaker, because 
I

[[Page 3072]]

think it really crystallizes what we ought not do here in the people's 
House because it does a disservice. And the quote goes like this:
  ``You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You 
cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the 
wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot encourage the 
brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the 
poor by destroying the rich. You cannot build character and courage by 
taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men 
permanently by doing for them what they could do for themselves.''
  And I may add another one tonight: that you cannot empower women by 
tearing down men.
  So the politics of division do truly a disservice to us as a Nation. 
It is disheartening to the public discourse, frankly. So I urge my 
colleagues to try to endeavor as we are talking about issues and the 
challenges that confront us to remember that truth is important and 
truth is vital in everything that we do.
  In my real job I was a physician. I was an orthopedic surgeon. And I 
am fond of telling folks that if I did not get truthful information 
either from the patient or from whatever laboratory study or 
examination we were doing, if we did not get truthful information, then 
we could not make the right diagnosis. If you do not make the right 
diagnosis, then you cannot treat the right disease. And if you do not 
treat the right disease, it is hard to get the patient cured.
  It is the same in public policy. If you are not dealing in truth, if 
you are not making the right diagnosis, if you are not treating the 
right disease, you cannot get to the right solution. So, again, I 
challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to try as hard 
as they can to avoid the politics of division. It really is shameful 
and it does a disservice to the public debate, and it really does not 
do any credit to the party itself.
  So I am pleased to be able to have the opportunity tonight to come 
and talk about many different things, but we are going to talk about 
the economy for a good length of time here this evening.
  I have been joined by a good friend and colleague, a member of the 
freshman class, Congressman Westmoreland, a fellow Georgian. 
Congressman Westmoreland is a small businessman and a fellow Georgian. 
I served in the State legislature with him. He has come to share some 
of that truthful information about the economy.
  Congressman Westmoreland, I welcome you and thank you for joining us 
tonight.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Price. And I want to thank you, my 
friend from Georgia, for hosting this hour to highlight some of the 
truth.
  I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you know that the truth sometimes hurts. 
And so when you are exposing the truth, it might be even seen by some 
as being hurtful, but I believe Mr. Haley Barbour quoted, Mr. Speaker, 
that ``The truth is a lot of things to a lot of people. But in the end, 
the truth is the truth.''
  I want to talk a little bit tonight about the success of the 
Republican economic policies and to expose the half-truths of our 
opponents who want to raise taxes on the American families.
  Mr. Speaker, the evidence speaks for itself. Republican principles 
and action lead to economic growth, more jobs, higher standards of 
living and increased revenue to the Federal Treasury. Since 2003, the 
U.S. economy has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs while the 
unemployment rate has dropped down below 5 percent, which is an 
extremely low number by historical standards. The increases in 
employment and wages seen last year are also expected to continue, 
which will help consumer spending. Household net worth has risen for 12 
consecutive quarters under the Republican administration and leadership 
of this House.
  Wealth has not risen just because of housing. Checking accounts, 
savings accounts, and so on are at a record high and are a larger share 
of after-tax income than any other time since 1993. Economic activity 
had considerable momentum last year, and that will carry into 2006, 
2007 and on. The Congressional Budget Office forecasted the real GDP 
will grow by 3.6 percent this year and by 3.4 percent in 2007.
  With these numbers it is obvious that the tax cuts, passed and 
renewed since 2001, have bolstered the American economy even after the 
incredible cost of September 11, 2001, the terrible destruction caused 
on the gulf coast by the series of hurricanes that hit there, and the 
high price tag of the war on terror.
  Despite many challenges, the state of our economy is strong. As our 
economy grows, as we create new jobs and as wages grow, more money 
comes into the Federal Treasury. That is right. Despite all of the 
belly-aching from the other side about the cost of the tax cuts, the 
Federal Treasury is taking in plenty of money. Last year the Federal 
Government took in $2.15 trillion, the highest dollar amount that has 
ever been received.
  I would like to ask my friend from Georgia if he has got a chart 
there that shows the revenues that came in last year. I think it will 
show that we do not have a revenue problem. What we have here is a 
spending problem. And the chart will show you that the revenues will go 
up as the tax cuts go into full swing to a record high. So we do not 
have a revenue problem.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate you pointing that out. I am sorry, 
I had this a little bit later, but this is the chart that you refer to.
  It really is amazing when people hear this because it is kind of 
counter-
intuitive. If you decrease taxes then people say, well, surely you 
decrease money coming into the government. But it does not work that 
way, does it? And what we see here is exactly what you described.
  You decrease this line right here. This is the years down here, 2000, 
2001, 2002, 2003. This line is when the tax decreases, the tax cuts, 
went into effect; and the red line is the revenue into the United 
States Treasury.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Because, Mr. Speaker and my friend from Georgia, 
people are reinvesting their money. They have more money to spend. That 
is a direct result of the tax cuts. In fact, we need to make these tax 
cuts permanent; and I think the people of this country would like to 
see that also. Despite this growth in revenue, we have seen an even 
greater growth in spending, and this has got to stop.
  The fact is we can and have cut back on discretionary spending in 
this Congress, but in order to really return our budget to fiscal 
sanity, we have no choice but to tackle serious entitlement reform.
  On this floor, our colleagues from the Democratic Caucus, the other 
side of the aisle, complain about the deficit. Yet when this Republican 
Congress and our Republican leadership took a stand to modestly reform 
entitlements and modestly curb the rate of growth and spending in the 
Deficit Reduction Act, no Democrats voted for that bill.
  Where were the so-called deficit hawks and the Blue Dog Democrats? 
Where were the Democrats in the 30-Something Group who say they would 
do a better job of taming the deficit?
  When it came time to make the tough choices, their votes did not 
match their rhetoric on the deficit. In fact, when it comes to offering 
solutions, attacks and hollow rhetoric are all we hear from the other 
side. What we do not hear from the other side is a plan of action. What 
we don't hear from the other side is a set of principles. What we do 
not hear from the other side is a strategy for securing our Nation 
while expanding our economy.
  These are truths, and sometimes the truth does hurt. Republicans, in 
contrast, have a plan for leading this Nation. The Republican Study 
Committee today released its proposal for balancing our budget, a 
recommitment to the contract on America. That budget recognizes that we 
must take serious steps to tame our budget deficit. If the Democrats 
had a plan, which they do not, their plan would include hefty tax hikes 
on American families and American job creators, and that is the only 
truth that can come out of that. You

[[Page 3073]]

cannot be unwilling to cut spending and expect the deficit to go away.
  Our budget recognizes that we do not need more revenue. We have never 
had more revenue. But we still have to make tough choices. In a world 
of tough choices we can raise the price of the buffet or we can curb 
our appetites. With our waistlines bulging, the choice is clear. We 
must go on a spending diet until our pants fit again.
  We have a plan for trimming down the budget. We have a plan for 
continuing our economic growth. We have a plan for strengthening the 
economic security of American families. And I think that plan should 
include making these tax cuts permanent so people can afford to plan 
their future and to know what is ahead of them.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I came up with another chart that highlighted 
exactly what you said because so often, as we have talked about on the 
Official Truth Squad, we get one word out of one side of a person's 
mouth and what they do when they actually vote is something completely 
different.
  You mentioned about the balanced budget amendment and the 
opportunities that our friends on the other side of the aisle have had 
to support a balanced budget amendment and, in fact, their deed has not 
matched their word. They talk a good game, they really do. They talk 
about supporting a balanced budget amendment. But here are votes that 
were taken in 1990; 145 Democrats voted no on a balanced budget 
amendment; 1992, 150 vote no; 1994, 151 vote no; 1995, 129 vote no. And 
the most recent time they had an opportunity to do that, 1997, 8 
Democrats voted yes, 194 voted against calling for a balanced budget 
amendment.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. To my friend from Georgia, my mother always told me 
that actions speak louder than words. And anybody can go anywhere and 
say anything, but when you are given an opportunity to take those words 
that you spoke and put them into action, and for the American people to 
be able to see that you are sincere in what you are saying, your votes 
should match what your words are.
  As we know, as all of us have been in politics, and I see the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee has joined us here, but in politics you can 
tell your constituents anything in the world, but they will know 
honestly how you feel when you vote. And that is what they should do 
and we should all be held accountable for our votes. And hopefully we 
will. Hopefully the truth will come out.
  I just appreciate so much you taking the time to do this and all the 
efforts that you have put forward to get the good Republican principled 
message out: that we are about American families. We are about them 
having more money in their pockets that they can use on discretionary 
spending for their families and to be able to plan for their future. 
Thank you very much.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thanks for your participation, and your words 
tonight really were right to the point.
  We are fond of saying in the Official Truth Squad, quoting Daniel 
Patrick Moynihan, who had a wonderful quote that goes, ``Everyone is 
entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.''
  And that is what this is about, the Official Truth Squad. You know as 
well as anybody that this is not Washington's money. This is the 
people's money. And that is what is so important to get across to 
folks. It is the people's money. It is not Washington's money.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Do you think that after so long this money starts 
looking like play money and you start talking about billions of dollars 
and trillions of dollars and that is unrealistic to most people? I 
think when you start to think of a billion dollars is ten hundred 
million, and most of us will never know what a million dollars is. It 
is not just play money. It is money that has come out of the taxpayers' 
pockets and we have got to be accountable for it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. It is their money and they deserve to spend it 
as they please. Thank you so much for your participation.
  We are talking about the economy tonight in the Official Truth Squad 
and trying to bring some light to some of the wonderful things that are 
happening in the economy and put statistics down where statistics ought 
to be and show the truth.
  We are joined tonight by Congresswoman Blackburn from Tennessee. We 
are so pleased to have you join us again on the Official Truth Squad 
and share some of your perspective on the United States economy right 
now.

                              {time}  2115

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding and for his leadership and the energy that he is putting into 
being certain that we communicate the message from our Republican 
agenda. Thank you for this, and thank you and the freshman class for 
tackling this project and being certain that we are talking about the 
things that are happening in our economy and the good news that is 
there to share.
  A couple of points that I would like to make tonight as we are 
talking about the economy and the growth in the economy is Mr. 
Westmoreland was just talking about leaving more money with American 
families, with all of our constituents, with their families. That is 
what one of our goals is, to be certain that we take less from those 
paychecks, so that the family, when they sit down to work out their 
budget, they have more that they are working with.
  I think that it is an absolute travesty that the single largest item 
in a family's budget is taxes. How did we get to this, that the largest 
item a family is left with is taxes? More than food, housing, clothing, 
transportation and education, more than lessons for children. How did 
we get to the point that it is taxes?
  How wonderful that we could make decisions in 2003, we had the 
opportunity to vote to roll back some of those taxes so that we take 
less. It is time that we end the Federal Government having first right 
of refusal on your paycheck and let you and your family have that 
paycheck and make those decisions of what to do with those hard-earned 
dollars.
  When we talk about women's issues, all issues are women's issues. 
Economic issues are definitely women's issues.
  One of the things that I hear regularly, wherever I am in this great 
and wonderful land, is that wherever you have the fastest-growing 
sector of that town, of that county, of that area's economy, most 
likely it is going to be women-owned small businesses, and I think that 
is so exciting that that entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well.
  One of the first issues that women will raise with me are taxes, the 
overburdensome nature of taxes, the cost of compliance for small 
businesses, how they would love to be growing that business, but with 
the taxes, with compliance costs, then they have less to spend in 
growing that business.
  So as we look at extending our tax reductions, as we look at being 
certain we do not raise taxes, that they do not go up, that we hold 
what we have in those tax reductions, it is so important that we 
realize that that benefits so many American women who are starting 
those businesses and are realizing the American dream and those gifts 
and opportunities and prosperities for their themselves and for their 
families.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I think that is such an incredibly important 
point that you just made, and that is not to raise taxes.
  What most of my constituents do not understand or appreciate is that 
Congress has to act in order for the current tax decreases, the current 
tax cuts, to continue, and that if we do nothing, if the other side is 
successful in making it so that Congress is inactive and does not do 
anything, then a tax increase will take effect; is that not the case?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentleman will yield, yes, indeed, that is the 
case. You know what we are trying to do is hold the line. We are trying 
to hold the line, and to keep them from pushing tax increases over that 
line, and that is our goal, to hold these reductions we have been able 
to put in place, to be certain that we do not see taxes raised on our 
families, on our small businesses.
  It is so important for these small businesses. I had a young lady in 
my

[[Page 3074]]

office this week, and it is such a great story. She said, Mrs. 
Blackburn, 4 years ago I was working at McDonald's; I thought, well, I 
will never get that higher education. She attended a career college, 
and she gave me her business card where she is working.
  I hear story after story after story of this, of women who have moved 
back in to see their educational dreams come true, to get that degree, 
to get that diploma, to complete that trade school and move into either 
working for themselves or working with someone else, but having that 
job, earning that paycheck, and they all want to be certain. We have a 
focus on what we are going to do about keeping their taxes low, what we 
are going to do about creating, creating the right environment so that 
jobs growth can take place.
  I know that you join me in looking forward to the numbers that are 
going to come out on Friday when we are going to see about jobs growth 
for this first quarter of the year, and everybody is excited about 
looking at this because we know that this economy is on a good, solid 
track. We are seeing plenty of help in it, and much of it has to do 
with reducing regulation, reducing taxation and putting the focus on 
what we do to be certain that we have a healthy economy.
  One of the things we talk about so often in my district, because I 
have a district where we have a lot of small businesses, small 
businesses are the number one employer. Upwards of 90 percent of all 
the jobs are attributed to small business growth, and my constituents, 
they keep me honest, and I love it because they remind me regularly 
that government does not create jobs, that they are the ones that are 
creating jobs. It is our job to be certain that the environment is 
right for those jobs to be created, and I am always running around with 
these little plastic pens with somebody's logo on it. I pick these up 
from employers in my district, and it reminds me these are the guys 
that are putting the pen to the paper, and they are the ones that are 
making jobs growth happen in our district.
  And I will yield to the gentleman for this poster which tells the 
story.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. It really does. A picture really is worth 1,000 
or a million words, certainly, and this one certainly is. In fact, it 
is worth 4.73 million words, because every one of those 4.73 million 
new jobs is demonstrated on this picture here, on this graph here, from 
January 2002 all the way to January 2006. You see the trend that 
happened during this administration, during the Republican leadership 
and what happened when it crossed the line with tax decreases, the tax 
cuts you talked about.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. So many of these jobs, sometimes I have people say, 
tell me where these are being created, tell me where these jobs are 
being created.
  What we have seen happen is that we are into the knowledge economy. 
We are into a technology-based economy, and we are seeing this jobs 
growth in different areas, and it is so wonderful because so many of 
the individuals that live in our districts are jumping in there. They 
are getting jobs retraining, they are getting computer skills 
retraining, and they are working in a million different careers that 
they never, ever thought would be available to them.
  And as we are watching the technology growth in our districts, all 
across this country, it is small business manufacturing industries that 
are growing. Their numbers are better than they have been in 10 years. 
I think that is such a sign of encouragement. Or whether they are 
working in service industry-related jobs, what we are seeing is new 
jobs, in new industries, which tell us that an economic renaissance is 
on that horizon. It is imperative that we make certain we do not see 
tax increases and that we do not see regulation increases and we keep 
an eye on having that right environment take place.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you so much for joining us this evening 
on this Official Truth Squad and bringing us some truthful numbers, 
some truthful comments, and highlighting so well the wonder of the 
small business community across this Nation, because the small business 
community really is the engine that drives the job creation in our 
Nation, and this is why the environment to make certain that small 
business, mom and pop, the corner drugstore, the corner cleaners, those 
folks who are just working as hard as they can, that the environment 
for them to be able to succeed and be able to thrive is so doggone 
important. That is what we are here to try to do and make certain that 
we continue that economic environment.
  We have been joined by Congressman Mike Conaway. Congresswoman Marsha 
Blackburn was with us. Congressman Mike Conaway is another fellow 
freshman member of the Official Truth Squad and very, very helpful. He 
is a CPA by profession. That is exactly what we need are more CPAs in 
Congress who can tell us exactly what the right number ought to be, and 
I want to welcome Congressman Conaway and look forward to your comments 
this evening, the truthful comments about our economy.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia and 
appreciate the gentleman from Georgia inviting me here tonight to allow 
me to share this time with him.
  Almost 16 years ago I participated in a Midland introspective. This 
was a look at what was going wrong and what was going right in Midland, 
Texas, where I am from, led by the United Way and a bunch of other 
folks who helped fund the introspective. We did a statistically valid 
survey of the community to find out what the needs were. This was a 
needs assessment, and we asked people what was happening in their 
neighborhoods and their cities and their homes, and to come up with 
some sort of sense as to how we should be addressing the social issues 
within our communities.
  Once we got the data back, again, it was statistically valid, we came 
up with our top 10 list of needs that Midlanders told us were Midland's 
needs, as opposed to those of us in certain organizations trying to 
decide on behalf of Midland what it was. Anyway, it was an idea that we 
could do this periodically to try to track how we were doing.
  If you look at the top 10 needs within our communities, nine of those 
needs would have been positively impacted by a job. The needs were 
family needs and needs for child care. The needs were health care. 
Every single one of them except one, and I probably ought to remember 
what that one was that was not directly associated with the solution 
being a job, because when a family gets a job, those 4.73 million jobs, 
I suspect, are associated with probably half that number or better, 
families, moms, dads, children whose lives are better every single day 
because someone in that family now has a job, someone's bringing in a 
paycheck, someone is creating an environment within that family so that 
the children see mom and dad working, the children understand 
responsibility, the children understand how families work. The families 
are so much better off when they have got a job.
  So we have 4.73 million jobs, and the number of families that are 
affected by that cannot be understated. In a body on the floor where 
hyperbole and overstating and overreaching and puffing is an art form, 
I probably ought to be able to come up with some flowery language that 
would help communicate how important job growth is, but I am burdened, 
though, by being a CPA, and we just do not puff and brag and all those 
kinds of things very well, and other folks it do it much better than 
us.
  What I really want to talk about tonight is what I see as the single 
biggest threat to our way of life that we face. I serve on the Armed 
Services Committee. We are a country at war, and I suspect most of our 
colleagues in the House tonight would think I would talk about the war 
being our single biggest threat to our way of life.
  I think it is the growth of Federal Government and the growth of 
spending that represents the single biggest threat to our way of life. 
Federal spending is a drag on the terrific economy that we have got 
going. Federal spending does not create wealth. As we

[[Page 3075]]

all know, it may create a few jobs, but those jobs are dependent upon 
programs. So the real effective jobs that create wealth and help 
families are those created in the private sector.
  The CBO, Congressional Budget Office, has recently published a study 
that is posted on their Web site that anybody can go to, cbo.gov, that 
looks at the 50-year trend in the growth in this Federal Government.

                              {time}  2130

  If you look at 2050, and they have several different scenarios that 
they run through, but the one that seems to make the most sense to me 
would show that by the year 2050, 45 years from now, that the Federal 
Government, left unchecked, left unchanged, will consume 50 percent of 
the gross domestic product of this country.
  We are currently at about 20 percent, and in my mind that is about 
the gag threshold for a Federal economy. So at 50 percent plus, there 
has never been a free market, free enterprise system anywhere in 
history that has allowed the central government to take half and 
allowed the rest of us to prosper on the other half, prosper in terms 
of an improved standard of living, of opportunities, of the kinds of 
things of the America that, quite frankly, my colleague and I inherited 
from our moms and dads and our grandparents.
  I have six grandchildren, six terrific grandchildren, and it is 
unfair of me as an adult to pass on to them a world that doesn't look 
better than the one I inherited. That ought to be our role as parents 
and grandparents, to make this world better for our children and our 
grandchildren. Well, in 2050, my oldest grandson will be about 53 years 
old. He will be where we are right now. Maybe he will be in Congress. 
That would be kind of cool. But he and his colleagues in that bracket 
will be where we are today. And if we don't do something beginning now 
to address this issue, then they will inherit a world that is radically 
different than ours, that is fundamentally different than the one you 
and I currently enjoy. And that is just wrong.
  Let me drive this point home. Who among us as grandparents, or any of 
us who want to be grandparents, would take, in my instance, my six 
grandkids down to the nearest bank and say, Mr. Banker, I want to 
borrow every single dollar in your bank, and I want you to prepare 
notes that my six grandchildren will sign. I am going to take the money 
and I am going to spend it the way I want to. I will spend it on some 
good stuff, but I am going to spend all of it, and you are going to 
have to look to these six grandkids for repayment of that debt.
  In all the times I have used this anecdote, or used this story, I 
have never found one grandparent who would say that they would in fact 
do that with their grandchildren. But collectively, somehow this mob 
mentality, that is exactly what you and I and our colleagues are doing 
in America, is that we are spending money today that we don't have and 
we are creating debt that our grandchildren are going to have to pay 
off.
  I spoke earlier today to a trade association and was asked for 
questions. And one of the guys in the audience asked about the budget 
deficits that we are experiencing and should we, in effect, continue to 
borrow this money that our grandkids are going to have to pay off; 
shouldn't we do something to address that? Well, I said, yes, we 
should, but it should not be a tax increase.
  Now, you and a couple of our colleagues have already talked about 
this. We do not have a revenue problem in America. The Federal 
Government does not have a revenue problem. We will have record tax 
collections this year. We had record tax collections last year. And our 
tax revenues, our ability to grow those is growing at about 5 percent a 
year. Collectively, we should be able to live within that spending 
frame. So I would disagree with our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who call for increased taxes, who call for a bigger share, a 
bigger take out of our working families and working people's take-home 
pay to help with our spending problem. So we don't have a revenue 
problem; we, in effect, have a spending problem. We just are simply 
spending too much.
  I know that my colleague and I belong to an organization that is 
going to bring forth a pretty radical budget scenario that could 
balance the budget within 5 years, and it is going to call for some 
pretty radical changes. The problem with cutting Federal spending, 
whether it is discretionary spending or mandatory spending, every 
single dollar that the Treasury writes a check for winds up on 
somebody's deposit slip. Somebody gets that money. They feed their 
families with it and do things with it that they think are important. 
They believe the Federal program that generates that check or that 
dollar is probably the single most important Federal program that we 
have going out there.
  It is much like surgery. You are a surgeon. If we are cutting on one 
of our colleagues, then it is minor surgery. But if that same surgery 
is being performed on me, it is major surgery. So cutting Federal 
spending is much the same way. We are going to see, once this budget is 
prepared by the Republican Study Committee, once it is published, and 
we have already seen it from the President's budget, we will see an 
awful lot of people who represent every single one of those dollars 
that are going out and the constituents for those dollars, the special 
interest groups for those dollars are going to be in pushback mode 
trying to convince you and I and others that we need to cut somewhere 
else. Not their program, some other program needs to be cut.
  This is going to be a little self-serving, and I don't want to 
intrude on your time tonight, but I introduced a bill last week that 
would require you and I, every Member of the House, every Member of the 
Senate, and our senior staffers to once a year read the Constitution. 
Now, it is going to be interesting as I begin to make the rounds and 
try to get our colleagues to agree with that to see what kind of 
pushback I get.
  As a physician, you had continuing education hours that you had to do 
every year to stay current in your profession and your field. I had, as 
a CPA, about 40 hours a year to keep current. It seems to me, and you 
and I have taken an oath to defend and protect that Constitution, you 
and I who write laws that implement some of the powers that are granted 
to the Federal Government under that Constitution, you and I who 
propose amendments to that Constitution, that this is kind of a novel 
approach, that we ought to know what is in it.
  So reading the Constitution once a year may help us begin to think 
about just big areas that this Federal Government should not be 
associated with. Not denigrate the area itself. That is not the issue 
here. Our Founding Fathers were incredibly brilliant. As modern-day 
Americans we have a pretty jaded view of other peoples and certainly 
other times, and we think we are the brightest and the smartest 
generation to have ever lived. But as you read our founding documents 
and read the Constitution, and as you think about what people did 230, 
240 years ago, there were some pretty bright folks that put this thing 
in place.
  And I think every single one of them, including Alexander Hamilton, 
who wanted the most expansive Federal Government he could think of, 
would be really shocked to see what collectively you and I and all of 
us have done with that document, with those authorities and powers. 
They had envisioned a pretty limited Federal Government, a pretty 
limited role. Everything else was to go to the States.
  Clearly, some of the roles we would all agree on, national security, 
homeland defense, border security, those are things everyone agrees is 
the Federal Government's job, period. It is not the States' job or 
local municipalities' jobs. It is ours, as representatives of the 
Federal Government, to get that done well. But we have an awful lot of 
areas that the Federal Government has crept into. And in order to make 
substantive changes in that growth in government, in that growth to 50 
percent of GDP that CBO thinks is an inevitable track, that we are 
going to have to make some very strong substantive

[[Page 3076]]

changes in the way we are doing business.
  As your colleague talked about earlier today, there are probably 
10,000 reasons in that budget that is going to be proposed for every 
single Member of Congress to vote against it. I have got six reasons 
why we ought to seriously consider it. Reason number one is named 
Michael; reason number two is named Caleb; reason number three is named 
Cameron; reason number four is named Emily Kate; reason number 5 is 
Conally, and reason number six is Alexandria. Those are the first names 
of my six grandkids.
  So that is what we ought to be about doing. It is going to be hard 
work and it is going to require some tough, tough choices, some tough 
things to tell people. Some folks are going to have to figure out a 
different way to feed their families and they will have to figure out 
ways to provide the goods and services that they think the Federal 
Government is currently doing that we don't think under our 
Constitution is an appropriate role. And it is going to be hard. We are 
going to have to ask people to make some sacrifices and do things in a 
whole lot different way than they have been doing it.
  Almost every one of us have grandchildren or will have grandchildren. 
And the path we are on, the path you and I inherited and that we are 
perpetuating, is one that leads to a very ugly conclusion.
  Now, as a CPA, that sounds like pretty standard stuff we say, and it 
is awfully downer talk, and it is not particularly uplifting, but it 
needs to be a clarion call. Our issue is that you and I and our 
colleagues are pretty good at handling stuff tomorrow, next week, and 
maybe some into 2007. But when we look beyond that, that is an 
eternity. This issue, this growth in Federal Government is 20 years, 30 
years, 40 years down the road. And so because it is far enough down the 
road, it is very easy for us to stick our heads in the sand and let it 
be someone else's responsibility, let it be someone else's decisions as 
to how to fix it.
  So if I don't do anything else tonight, hopefully I can scare some of 
our colleagues into at least taking a look at that CBO study. Don't 
take my word for it, go look at it for yourself. And, look, if the 
number is only 40 percent of GDP, if it is 60 percent of GDP, it is a 
number that is unsustainable. It is a world that is fundamentally 
different than the one you and I currently enjoy, the opportunities we 
have and our colleagues have, and it is just patently unfair for us to 
hand that off to our children.
  I want to thank my good colleague for letting me rant tonight and 
share with you and other members of this Truth Squad, and I thank you 
for organizing this and getting it done.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you so much, Congressman Conaway. You 
said you didn't have the flowery speech, but you do. And in addition to 
that flowery speech, you speak the truth. Because so oftentimes here we 
don't refer to that document, the Constitution, that I carry with me 
every single day and that highlights our principles; that is the 
founding document that says what our guidelines ought to be.
  Where are our walls and fences? What should we be doing? We ought to 
hear every single day on the floor of this House, is that the 
responsibility of the Federal Government? We ought to be asking 
ourselves that on every single thing we do.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for just a 
moment, your good colleague from Georgia was sharing with us last night 
an experience he had with a town hall meeting. Somebody asked him about 
a proposed cut of the President, and I will not name the particular 
policy area because I don't want to get off into that kind of thing, 
because it just distracts us. But anyway, they asked, why are you in 
favor of cutting whatever?
  His great answer back, and I am going to steal it from him, was to 
look at them and say, okay, how many in here think that is the Federal 
Government's responsibility; that particular area of public policy? And 
not one person raised their hand. And this is an area that is very 
important to our country, very vital to our country, but it is just not 
the Federal Government's role.
  And he did it again. Somebody else brought up another area. And he 
thought, well, it worked once so let me try it again. How many people 
here think that is a role that the Federal Government should be doing? 
Not one hand raised.
  So I think Americans are like that. They understand that if we begin 
to pose things in that frame, questions just like that, that we will 
begin to get the political will and the political backbone and support 
for getting back to basics and getting back to the constitutional 
Republic that we have.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate so much, again, the gentleman's 
coming. Really, it is a positive picture, because what it says is that 
we ought to be looking at our founding document. That is a positive 
uplifting picture.
  I guess what is one of the most distressing things about what you 
have said is that you described this budget that is going to be 
proposed as a radical budget, but it is a balanced budget. There is 
nothing radical about a balanced budget within a 5-year period of time, 
which is, as I understand it, what will be proposed. So it is not 
radical.
  In fact, doing anything else is harmful, is not compassionate, and is 
probably radical because it puts us on that track for the GDP 
percentage being consumed by the Federal Government that you pointed to 
of 50 percent in the year 2050. And as you say, that is unsustainable. 
It means it doesn't work. Can't work.
  So thank you so much for joining me tonight, and I really appreciate 
your perspective and your insight and your acumen that you bring from 
the private sector to us here in Congress.
  I have talked about Senator Moynihan's wonderful quote that 
``Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.'' 
What we try to do on the Truth Squad is to highlight some of the 
comments that have been made on the floor of the House of 
Representatives and to point out what in fact the truth is. And we have 
heard an awful lot, an awful lot lately about the Dubai Ports 
situation, the potential transfer or sale of management of six of our 
Nation's ports to Dubai Ports World.
  And regardless of what you think about that, there are some real 
questions that many of us have about that. But in the context of that 
discussion, we have heard over and over and over again that no money 
has gone to port security, the money has been slashed to port security, 
and the Congress hasn't been responsible in what it has done with port 
security. So what I have done tonight is to bring two new highlights 
for the Official Truth Squad that talk about port security funding.
  This first one highlights the funding to the six ports that are in 
question here as it relates to the current topic.

                              {time}  2145

  This chart says since September 11, 2001, Congress has authorized a 
700 percent increase. That is not a cut, that is not flat, that is an 
increase in funding for port security, and in particular Congress has 
authorized the following amounts for six of the most high-risk ports: 
$43.7 million to the port of New York and New Jersey; $32.7 million to 
the port of Miami; $27.4 million to the port of New Orleans; $16.2 
million to the port of Baltimore; and $15.8 million to Philadelphia, a 
700 percent increase in port security since September 11, and nowhere 
do you see a decrease.
  That is highlighted even more so on this chart here that demonstrates 
and shows the port security funding in fiscal year 2001, and you see 
the remarkable increases we have had since September 11, 2001; fiscal 
year 2006 and the 2007 request is nearly $3 billion for money that 
would be utilized in the area of port security.
  What you hear and what the truth is oftentimes are two different 
things. I am pleased to be able to bring this kind of information to 
the floor and to talk about the truth, talk about the kind of numbers 
that in fact we are dealing with in the House of Representatives and to 
try to get through a lot of partisanship, to try to get above a lot of

[[Page 3077]]

hyperbole and misinformation that is rampant and does a disservice to 
the debate.
  We oftentimes do not get to debate a whole lot in Congress. Like what 
is occurring tonight, one side presents their issues and the other side 
presents their issues. It goes back and forth. It really is not a 
debate, it is not an interchange. It is not the kind of thing that I 
would think of as a debate and probably most Americans would think of, 
but what is occurring with the Official Truth Squad coming here night 
after night after night is we are beginning to have some dialogue, some 
back and forth with our friends on the other side of the aisle, and 
they have made some interesting comments and I thought I should bring 
them to the American people.
  Last night there was a group of folks in the House that call 
themselves the Blue Dogs, and they talked about what we do in the Truth 
Squad in a certain way.
  They said, ``Following us this evening, I am pretty confident that 
the other side will show up and they will probably talk about how we 
had an opportunity to cut, to cut $40 billion in spending and how we, 
the Blue Dogs, voted against it. But what they will not tell you is it 
was $40 million in cuts to the most vulnerable people in our society: 
Medicaid, 8 out 10 seniors in Arkansas on Medicaid; 1 out of 5 people 
in Arkansas are on Medicaid. Cuts to Medicaid, cuts to student loans to 
the tune of $40 billion.''
  Now that is what they said. But the Official Truth Squad is here 
because what we are interested in doing is looking at the real numbers. 
What is the truth in that? That is a pretty significant charge that was 
made, significant cuts in Medicaid and to education, to student loans. 
What is the truth? What really has Congress done?
  Madam Speaker, here is the chart that puts the Medicaid situation 
into perspective. This chart goes from 1995 to 2005. It talks about the 
amount of money, the Federal outlays in billions of dollars to the 
Medicaid program. In fact, what this square says is that spending more 
than doubled over the last 10 years on Medicaid for an average growth 
of 7.4 percent per year. Average growth in Medicaid for the past 10 
years, 7.4 percent. That may not sound like a lot, but look at the 
actual numbers. In 1995, $89.1 billion. In the year 2000, $208 billion. 
In 2005, $181.7 billion in Medicaid funding.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I know that people oftentimes like to talk about 
a cut. As I talked about before, that is the politics of division. It 
does not help anybody. All it does is put fear into folks reliant on 
the program who oftentimes are the most vulnerable.
  What we have done in the United States House of Representatives under 
Republican leadership is cut waste, cut fraud, worked to cut the abuse 
of the system, but continually increasing the amount of revenue that is 
going because that population, regretfully, has increased. So it is 
appropriate to have more money go into that area, not cuts, not cuts to 
the program.
  What about education? They mentioned education. These cuts that they 
quote for education; well, in fact, it is the same kind of picture. 
Here we have a chart, the year 2000 all of the way up to 2005. This is 
the annual growth in Federal education spending over the past 5 years. 
The year 2000, a little under $40 billion. The year 2005, nearly $60 
billion. Total education spending has grown an average of 9.1 percent 
per year over the past 5 years. That is certainly faster than the 
inflation rate. It is faster than the population in that area. It is 
not a cut, not a cut.
  And then they talk about student loans. What is happening with 
student loans? We had some significant changes to student loans last 
year, but they were loans that put more money into the hands of the 
students and less money into the hands of the borrowers. Still, if we 
look at the actual money, this is the truth, the Official Truth Squad, 
Pell grant funding has grown 10.3 percent per year since the year 2000, 
$12.4 billion for fiscal year 2005. The graph demonstrates clearly 
annual growth every single year.
  So, Madam Speaker, when people hear that the cuts are occurring and 
when they hear the discussion about the cuts as was mentioned earlier 
in the budget, the balanced budget within 5 years that is going to be 
proposed, again, it is not honest, it is not fair to the discussion. It 
results in this politics of division which pits one group against 
another, all of which is not positive for our Nation and it does not 
assist in the debate. It does not help us reach solutions. I encourage 
my colleagues to kind of rethink how they are approaching this debate.
  We would love to have an open and honest discussion about these 
things and be able to work together to solve the problems because these 
are not Republican problems, these are not Democrat problems, these are 
American problems. They are challenges that all of us have. It works 
best, our system works best when we all work together to solve the 
challenges that we have.
  Madam Speaker, we live in a wondrous and a glorious Nation. It is 
still a Nation where men and women around the world, they look to us 
with optimism, they look to us as being a beacon of liberty and a 
vessel of hope. They view us as being an example that they might be 
able to follow. I am proud to serve in the United States House of 
Representatives. I am proud to serve with men and women who are willing 
to stand up and to say how much they love America and how much they 
believe that the policies that we are putting forward are moving us in 
the right direction. I am proud to serve with those men and women who 
joined us this evening and talked about truth, talked about issues that 
are so important for the American people to understand and put a little 
positive perspective on the challenges that we have before us. I look 
forward to coming back at some point in the future.

                          ____________________