K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Let me finish off, and I will yield back for a little bit. We are talking about young men and women's lives who have volunteered to do a fight for us on our behalf, to fight an enemy that is really bad individuals, to stand between us and those bad individuals. I even hesitate to bring this point up, but you look at this supplemental that has been proposed, an additional $21.8 billion added to it, and I would argue, and I am, on an individual basis, were it not in this bill, I would be for it. I think we have got some disaster relief and some other kinds of things that we could be for, but it appears to be an attempt to circumvent the PAYGO rules, that this, the other side beat our heads about, beat us about the head and shoulders with all during the campaign. In other words, if you declare the milk thing a disaster, then it doesn't have to be held up to PAYGO. All of this emergency spending is outside the PAYGO rules under the Democrat leadership. So they have spoken with forked tongue, so to speak, that they would cling to the PAYGO rules, and yet on this first big appropriations bill, they come whistling in here with an additional $21.8 billion. I would even question part of the $103 billion that the President proposed. I am not sure that Katrina is still an emergency. Yeah, we have issues in Katrina. Yeah, we have issues with what is going on in New Orleans, and we have a got a lot of money in the pipeline backed up. I think we ought to figure that out first before we throw additional moneys at it. So the $99 billion that is for the war fight, for the reset, for the troops that are in harm's way, we would, I think most all of us would agree on. But beyond that we have got some real challenges from a spending standpoint. Those issues pale in comparison to putting a hard deadline on getting out of Iraq and the serious consequences that that leaves our military commanders on the ground.

Mr. CONAWAY. Here, here. All under the emergency basis. We are totally out of office space and it is an emergency that we don't have that office space sooner.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, on a different topic altogether, we have heard talk that the Democrats will bring forth the idea that we can set some sort of an artificial time line on when to get out of Iraq. I would argue there are really only two choices in this issue, and this third choice is false and misleading. Here is the example: let's assume for the sake of this argument that Democrats decide in March of 2008 we need to stop this fight. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, how do you look those family members in the eye whose loved ones are killed or maimed in March of 2008 and say, gee, if we had known in March of 2007 what we now know in March of 2008, that your loved one would have gotten killed, I might have thought a February 28 date was a better date. Madam Speaker, we have no three choices. We have two choices, and they are honorable, in a sense. One is to fight this fight and win, which is the choice I believe is the correct one; or we simply raise the white flag, admit defeat, say that we have lost and get our troops out today. Anything short of that is untenable. The impact it has on the war fighter is obvious, ignoring, of course, the impact it has on the folks we oppose and the advantages it gives them. We simply cannot hamstring our fighters in this fight. I cannot face families in July of this year or March of next year and say, gee, but for the calendar clicking off, your loved one would not have been at risk. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pick sides in this fight. Either we fight it or we get out. Pick a side. There is no third alternative.

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate a great American. Mr. Daniel J. Hollmann of Odessa, Texas, has been a community leader in Odessa and the Permian Basin for more than three decades. A small businessman, family man and steadfast volunteer, Dan is one of the shining stars in the Eleventh Congressional District of Texas. April 1 of this year marks the 30th anniversary of Dan receiving his license to practice law and the founding of his own firm, now Hollmann, Lyon, Patterson and Durell. Reaching this milestone is a great achievement, and I congratulate him for showing the hard work and perseverance I know it takes to run a small business. I would also like to recognize and congratulate Dan as the 2006 recipient of the Odessa Chamber of Commerce's Outstanding Citizen of the Year Award. The award, given to the chamber member who best represents the collective goals of the business community of Odessa, was given to Dan because of his extensive volunteer history to the community and involvement in volunteerism that led to this award. He has donated legal services to various nonprofit organizations, including the Formation of Court Appointed Special Advocates of Ector County and Catholic Charities Community Services, and is a proud supporter of many public school booster clubs, ranging from the Permian High School Choir Booster Club to the Odessa High School Basketball Booster Club. Again, I congratulate my friend Daniel J. Hollmann on all of these achievements and thank him for his continued service to our community. Other citizens should look to him as a role model, and I am proud to represent him in the United States Congress and to call him my friend. Proposed Time line for Withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Iraq

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Yes, sir. This goes into the part of the bill that talks about additional consideration. The administrator has wide leeway in how they grant these grants, and I would simply like in the Record, in the law, that this is one of the things that administrator should take into consideration. This in no way binds or ties their hands to any particular size of community or use but allows good judgment by the administrator and in recognition that rural America is outnumbered on this floor. And having those words in this language will be particularly important to the constituents I serve who recognize that and understand that from time to time you guys have got us outnumbered. So it does not set up a preference, but it simply says, here is one other criteria to look at when you decide on these questions.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, for the past decade, within rural communities throughout the country, home water bills have increased faster than the rate of inflation, and it seems likely that this trend will continue. Currently, rural populations across America are being forced to comply with extremely costly regulations regarding standards that have been set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Chairman, I have rural constituents who are currently paying upwards of 770 percent more for water service than that of urban populations due to regulatory items and the inability to spread these costs over a wide basis. As deregulations are implemented and aging infrastructures replaced, the affordability of water service in rural America will continue to be of great concern. Water systems, consumers, administrators and policy makers will need to focus on the ability of rural households to pay for public water service. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not a solution to the underlying problem; it is a recognition of the issue and a step in the right direction. My amendment would simply add to the considerations for these grants recognition of water systems serving 10,000 people or less.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, we are anxiously awaiting the arrival of the 2008 budget that the Democrats are putting together. In all likelihood, it will require a spending of $2.9 trillion. Let me put that money in perspective. That is $90,000 plus every second of the fiscal year. It is a lot of money. Tax rates will be going up under current law unless this Congress acts to not do that. There is a myth being purported by the other side that we can somehow tax the rich and balance the budget. That is a myth. The top 10 percent of taxpayers already pay two-thirds of the taxes that are being paid in this country. Spending restraint is far more impactful on balancing the budget than raising taxes. We have a spending problem, not a tax-raising problem. I urge my colleagues to work on spending restraint as the true measure of how we fix this deficit.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Because, as you know, I am only one election away from being back in public practice. So maintaining my credentials that I have used for 30-plus years is important. Part of that work I did was with taxpayers, folks who actually make money and then pay taxes on that money. There is nothing inherently moral or immoral about a tax rate. The number in itself is not magic. We have gotten ourselves into a real ugly box in comparing or contrasting or linking spending issues with particular tax rates. In my view, those are entirely two different issues all together. We ought to determine what we ought to spend and what that appropriate amount is and then figure out how to collect the minimum amount of taxes needed to spend that. To the extent we try to link tax cuts on one type of a taxpayer to spending in other areas is a false argument. It is a straw man that is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I can assure you that the Federal Government's accounting system does not put cash from this particular tax rate into this bucket that is only spent on welfare; from this tax rate into one bucket, only goes in the Defense. Cash is fungible. I think we should reformulate the debate away from this idea that there is some link between the specific tax rates and specific spending issues, because I believe that is just a false argument, and it leads us down a bad path. Let's focus on what we ought to be spending in a variety of areas, whether it is defense or health care whatever it might be, let's figure out what the right amount is for that area. Then let's look for a system that allows us to collect that in a straightforward, easy to comply with, fair basis. I don't think our current Tax Code meets any of those criteria. I have made a living for a long time helping people comply with the complexity of it. You know, a lot of my colleagues are in the same boat. But this current system is unworkable, and it leads us down the wrong path. As you have mentioned, we are now under 1,400 days away from the largest tax increase America has ever seen with the expiration of the current tax rate and the current tax schemes as it relates to the death tax. We don't know if those are the right ones or not, but they are the ones we have got. The ones we have had in place since 2001, I think, in no small part have contributed to the growth of this economy, have contributed to taxpayers being able to have more of their own money, to put that investment back into their families, businesses and other things. The current tax rates are working, and to the extent that they expire and have automatic increases is unfortunate. I understand we are about out of time. I appreciate getting to join you late in the hour.

Mr. CONAWAY. Grandchildren.

Mr. CONAWAY. Just to set the record straight, I am still a CPA. I am keeping my license current,

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding me this time. Let me correct that record just a bit. I have got the area just west of Fort Hood. So I have got a lot of civilian contractors and retirees and active duty personnel who live in my district, but serve in Fort Hood.

Mr. CONAWAY. Absolutely. I certainly would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this time tonight. I am opposed to this nonbinding resolution. This is a vehicle that the majority is using to bring us to this debate tonight. The resolution is pretty simple in its language. It simply says that Congress disapproves of the decision President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops, U.S. combat troops to Iraq. It says this twice, in the preamble and then once again in the resolved. It also says once that Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have bravely and honorably served in Iraq. We must assume, of course, that, because it is not stated, that Congress and the American people will also support and protect those additional troops that are headed into harm's way who will serve in Iraq, even though the resolution disapproves of the decision that sends those young men and women into harm's way. The majority knows that this resolution will pass. They would not have brought it to the floor if their leadership had not be assured that they had the minimum 218 votes needed to pass this resolution. Since passage is assured, we have to ask, why this language? Why something so like this, that simply says what they are against, as opposed to something that is perhaps more meaningful, like what you are for. It allows those who would vote in favor of this, and like I said I am quite confident it will pass, to set themselves up in that very enviable position to say I told you so if things do not go exactly as planned. And no plan in war has ever done that. So our colleagues who vote in favor of this resolution will be in that position to be able to say I told you so across a variety of circumstances. I do not believe that either side of the aisle believes that it is the role of this or any other Congress to tell the President how not to deploy 20,000 troops. I believe there is another reason for this language. One explanation may be that it sets the stage for something that will really have an impact on the War in Iraq, the way that war is being fought, and I think that has to do with the power of the purse. In spite of the language that says we will continue to support and protect our troops, I believe we will see in the not too distant future attempts by the majority to cut off funding for this war. I think we got a preview of this tactic last week when we passed the continuing resolution which cut $3.1 billion in spending for military quality of life projects and infrastructure that is needed to support the various BRAC decisions. A lot has been made as to whether or not this debate will have an impact on the morale of our troops. Last week in a hearing with the Armed Services Committee, General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told us, as well as Bob Gates, that this debate in and of itself will not directly hurt or harm the morale of the young men and women who are fighting this fight. I think that is generous. But what Pace did tell us was that if this Congress begins to cut funding, cut financial support, begin to go back on the promises made to those young men and woman, that that will in fact have a deleterious impact on the troops' morale and their families who serve here. I think that the debate tonight and the next 4 days will have a direct impact on the families who support these young men and women, who allow them to do what they do on behalf of this country. And that is certainly is regrettable, if that support is hurt and harmed, and that hurt and harm is then transmitted to our young men and women who are fighting this fight every single day. I also do not believe it is the role of 535 independent contractors that make up the House and Senate to become five-star generals and make decisions on how to fight this fight or any other war. I do believe it is our job to look as far into the future as we can, and make decisions and then pass laws that lead this Nation. I do not know of anyone who believes that a failure in Iraq is in our national interest. Both sides have been saying this. There are no good results for such a failure. General Petraeus has listed out a couple of the possibilities that he talks about. One is that sectarian groups would begin to stake out turf. This would generally involve ethnic cleansing. The humanitarian suffering that would go on while that was happening is totally unacceptable He also mentions that international terrorist organizations might gain control of Iraq, and therefore use their bases in Iraq to further their interests. The disruption to the oil markets and the impact that that will have not only on our economy but economies around the world would certainly occur if we have a failure in Iraq. None of these guesses as to what would happen for failure in Iraq, that failure would almost automatically happen with an untimely withdrawal of our troops, none of them are positive, none of these scenarios make Iraq a safer place, none of them make the Middle East a safer place, and they certainly do not make America and the United States safer. There are no guarantees, of course, that any plan will work. But telling the President what not to do is clearly not in the interest interests of moving this debate forward. My personal view of that future that I spoke about is that the effort in Iraq is a major part of the overall global war against Islamic Jihadists. Other Members have eloquently stated tonight that this war will last for decades. I take very seriously the threats that the Islamic Jihadists have made and are making to kill Americans and to hurt American interests. I do not understand why they take these positions, but I certainly believe them when they tell us they are coming to hurt us. This fight, this global war against Islamic Jihadists is really a fight for the heart of Islam. We must begin imploring moderate Muslims to stand against those few who seek to hijack the religion, and who are prosecuting this fight. Let me preface my next remarks by saying that I am a Christian, and I believe that God is always in the business of changing men's hearts, and that the hearts of these Islamist Jihadists can be changed by the God I serve. But short of that, I believe we have only two choices, either we lock these people up forever or we kill them. That is pretty harsh for a Christian to say, but those are our only options. I don't believe we can compromise with them and I don't believe they will compromise with us. I don't believe that they will alter their beliefs to peacefully coexist with us. So we are in a fight that will last for years and for decades. There is no guarantee as to how this fight is being prosecuted and how we win this fight, I just know that we cannot lose it. And this resolution tonight does not move that process forward in a positive way. We are in a long and hard struggle to protect freedom and liberty here and around the world. We are blessed by men and women who are willing to risk everything to defend you and me every minute of every day. This resolution does not help in that struggle. And I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of my colleague's amendment from Virginia on three points: conservation, fiscal responsibility, and example. Those of us on our side of the aisle from time to time are criticized, perhaps correctly or incorrectly, on our lack of appreciation of conserving fuels when it comes to driving cars, buses, trains, airplanes. I have had amendments in the past that would seek to try to educate Americans how they can drive their own personal automobiles smarter, in ways to use less gasoline. Not only would that help them in the pocketbook but also help the environment. This is a clear overreach from a standpoint of conservation because the jets available to the Speaker, she should make the most appropriate selection of that jet to accommodate not only her safety. Clearly, that is an important mission for this to be considered, but also take into consideration the operating characteristics of the airplanes that she wants to fly in. So the selection of a 757, however it is configured, we have already paid for that configuring and somebody in the Air Force decided that they needed that particular configuration, and I am not questioning that, but the 757 itself is clearly too large an airplane to carry one person, the Speaker, to and from her district. The fiscal responsibility stands on its face. It does not take a CPA to understand that an operating cost of $22,000 per hour versus the operating cost of a G-5, which is in the $5,000 range, that $17,000 an hour differential is being paid for by somebody. Well, in my mind, that somebody is a taxpayer in west Texas. That taxpayer is probably working morning tower on a Parker drilling rig or a Patterson UTI drilling rig, going to work at eleven o'clock at night working till seven o'clock the next morning, trying to pay his taxes, in addition to feeding his family and providing for them. That is who I think is going to pay the $17,000 when I look at the option of the $5,000 G-5 versus the $22,000 757. The last point I want to make is that of example. All of us are in leadership positions. All 435 Members of this House are leaders in one small way or another. We lead our own offices, and we set the example of the way we conduct ourselves. If I conduct myself one way, my staff, in all likelihood, is going to mimic that. They are going to do what I do and hopefully maybe learn from my example. I think the same thing will happen here. When the leader of this House, by her example, says money is no object, cost is no object, if for whatever we are trying to do, that is not a consideration to be considered when you look at decisions that have to be made. Now cost does not drive every single decision; but where I grew up, most of the folks in District 11, that is one of the questions that gets asked whenever we are trying to make a decision, how much is that going to cost, because in our own mind we make a quick cost-benefit analysis between the benefits that we seek versus those costs. If we can get those benefits for a lower cost, then I can assure you most folks in District 11 will opt for the lower cost to get those same benefits. So the benefits that we want is the Speaker being able to go to and from her district safely with the security folks that she needs to have on the plane. Beyond that I am not sure why we should be flying folks back and forth on this jet; but if there are empty seats in that smaller jet, I do not begrudge any of my Democrat colleagues from California wanting to ride back and forth. That is fine. As I make the stop in Dallas or Houston and wait for the next leg of my flight or I have missed that next leg of flight, I will not begrudge the fact that they are flying nonstop to San Francisco. That is fine. So safety of the Speaker, clear, that has got to be done, but we also ought to do it in a cost-effective manner. So if she is leading from the top, with her tone from the top being that money is no object, whatever it takes to have something done that she wants done, that needs to be done, we are not going to consider costs, then I think that will percolate throughout her staff and the Democrat side of this institution, and the fiscal responsibility that they laid claim to throughout the campaign last year and they are trying to lay claim to in this Congress I think is called into question. So I support my colleague's amendment and urge a vote ``yes'' in favor of it.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank my colleague. Let me make three points really quick and then we will go to closing comments because we have about 12 minutes left. But you mentioned the sales tax deduction. Just to help our many colleagues that have joined us tonight to listen to this great debate in the Chamber with us, let me explain to them what the impact is. It is a matter of equity, because States that have income taxes, those income taxes that you pay in the State reduce your for Federal tax purposes. So you get to deduct those State income taxes. So you get to deduct those State income taxes. States without an income tax, unless we put this provision back in, those taxpayers in effect subsidize the rest of the United States' taxpayers because there are inequitable circumstances. So being able to deduct sales taxes means that the taxpayers in Texas are on a more equal footing with taxpayers in States that have an income tax. You mentioned the marriage penalty being a detriment to getting married. I don't know if that is the case. I do know there is a calculable tax toll for making the decision to get married. That may not dissuade couples from getting married, but it might. There is a tax toll, and all of us agree that strong families are the core of the institution that is America. And to the extent we discourage strong families, shame on us. Finally on the 179, by dropping that deduction from $100,000 to $25,000, what happens there is the only businesses that pay money are businesses making money. You have to have taxable income in order to make money. If we have reduced the deduction by $75,000, the company has to pay tax, and let's assume a 35 percent tax rate, on that $75,000. So you take the $75,000 in profit, less the $26,500 that you pay in taxes and that net, $48,000, is all they have got left to pay dividends or reinvest in their business as opposed to the $26,250 that they could have reinvested in the equipment. So these are meaningful hits and meaningful tax policy that we ought to continue. I yield to Mr. Davis.

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania who is the chairman of the Countdown Crew where we come in weekly and talk about tax policy. There is nothing magical about tax policy. There is nothing sacred about it. There are various terms and provisions. We ought to be about trying to find an efficient tax collection scheme that allows for voluntary compliance, a scheme that is easy to comply with and costs the least amount of money possible to comply with, but raises the minimum amount of money needed to fund the Federal Government. The policy we have in place is incredibly complicated. I am a CPA, and I have spent 32-plus years in business, both complying with the tax law and trying to help other folks comply with the tax law. It is unnecessarily complicated, but it is the one we have got. The provisions we have, as has been mentioned tonight, the current rate on capital gains tax, the current rate on interest, the 179 deduction, the various marginal tax rates, all of those, while there is nothing cast in concrete or stone about that, nevertheless if you look at the results we have had since they were implemented in 2001 and 2003, this economy has grown with those tax policies in place. Could the economy have grown with other tax policies in place? Certainly, but that would be a guess as to whether or not that happened. The truth is we know these were in place and we know what happened with respect to the economy since they have been in place, since they brought us out of the recession of 2000-2001. Geoff mentioned his taxpayer that he talks about. The guy I think about when we talk about raising taxes is a fellow working morning tour for a drilling rig company, probably the derrick man. He probably has the most exciting job on a drilling rig. Most drilling rigs of any substance have 15 to 30-foot substructure from the ground to the floor of the rig, and then they have a mast on top of that of something in excess of 100 feet. And the derrick man's job is to stand at about 90- plus feet above the substructure, so he is 120 feet in the air, and works. It is hard work. It is physically demanding and dangerous work. He is making good money. He works 8 hours and if he is lucky some weeks he gets overtime. That is how he feeds his, and I say ``he,'' most of them are men, that is how he feeds his family. When we talk about raising taxes on individuals, I don't think about Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. I think about that guy working morning tour, for example, for Parker Drilling, or Patterson Drilling which is based in Snyder, Texas, who comes to work at 11 at night and works until 7 in the morning, and gets in a car with the other four guys on the crew and they drive home and he sleeps during the day. That is how he feeds his family. That work is 7 days a week for the most part. It is a hard job. That is who I think about when we talk about raising taxes. So we will be coming back here again next week on the first night back to highlight again. We will have peeled off another 7 days that we have before the automatic tax increase. We have a good colleague who gets all over us about mandatory spending. Well, this is a mandatory tax increase headed our direction, as our colleague from Pennsylvania said, if we simply run out the clock. It will have been 18 days at that point in time since the last tax increase. We are not aware of any tax increases on the floor this week. But hang onto your wallet. Given the way so far our colleagues have run the shop, you don't get a lot of heads up on this stuff. It just comes to the floor. They could have something up their sleeve as part of the CR that would raise taxes and do all kinds of things. And I don't want to taunt them, but again not going through committee and doing regular order leads to the kind of blindsided unexpectedness where that can happen. It has been 11 days since the first tax increase, and others are on the way. I want to thank my colleagues from Pennsylvania, Georgia and Kentucky, and also from Oklahoma, for helping us out tonight.

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, and I turn to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for some closing words.

Mr. CONAWAY. It is not likely that this continuing resolution will go through committee either. It is just going to get dropped on us like a laser-guided bomb, rushed straight to the floor, not going to go through committee, not going to have the openness and the transparency and the 48 hours and all the kinds of things that our good colleagues on the other side of the aisle promised in October. Promises in October are hard to keep in January, and we are seeing it, and we will continue to try to point that out without seeming as whiny as it sounds, I suspect, to my colleagues and my constituents in west Texas. But that is going to be part of our role over the next 2 years, is to be the loyal opposition, to try to do so in a respectful manner as we point out promises made and promises broken by folks on the other side of the aisle. Does my colleague from Kentucky have some other thoughts?

Mr. CONAWAY. Exactly. And transparency.

Mr. CONAWAY. I have also heard they are going to wipe out all the earmarks. It will be their definition of an earmark, and it will be interesting to see which earmarks really get zeroed out and which ones don't and how they parse that definition between the two in order to keep the ones they want and peel out the ones that they think are wasteful spending, and it will be interesting where those earmarks impact and which districts are the ones that really get peeled out.

Mr. CONAWAY. Sure.

Mr. CONAWAY. And my good colleague has added to the list of folks that are going to be impacted by this reduced cash flow to these agencies. Think about that for a second. That is what we are talking about, over at the Social Security Administration, at the FBI and other places that Geoff has talked about. It simply reduced cash flow to those agencies; and, because there is a reduction in cash flow, they are reducing mission, they are laying people off, they are doing less service. The Social Security folks won't have as many people to service all those callers out there. That is exactly what happens in small businesses when we reduce their cash flow by tax increases. Because money that would otherwise go into making payrolls and paying benefits and adding folks to the payrolls is now coming into these Federal Government's coffers being spent in ways that, for the most part, I suspect they are good, but there is an awful lot of waste in there. And, clearly, our taxpayers out there can spend their own dollars better than we can on their behalf. Now, subsequent to my conversation with my staffer, we have gotten a rumor. And again in the minority we get to whine all the time. It is just going to be our job over the next 2 years, just to be very good whiners. It is not in our nature, it is very unlike us to do it, so we will probably do it very poorly. But we don't know what is going on over there. It has been days and days and days. These folks knew they had the reins of this thing starting January 4; they knew that on November 8. And we have had now over 2 months that they knew that this was going to be the circumstance, that they were going to be dealing with the continuing resolution, and we have no resolution to the continuing resolution. And I am sure there are good reasons on their side of the aisle for why they have not been able to make these decisions, but surely these decisions are not going to involve some of the draconian nonsense that many of our agencies are worried about, and they are worried about it because they don't have the facts. Most folks deal real well with facts. What we don't deal well with is uncertainty, innuendoes, and rumors. So I would encourage our folks on the other side of the aisle to get that CR done if you are going to do it. If not, then let's start bringing appropriations bills to the floor. There is nothing wrong with that. That is a nice way to do it. We should be legitimately criticized because we didn't get it done under our watch, but that same criticism now applies to the folks in charge. It doesn't matter, just get on or off the pot, as they say. Bring a CR to the floor, show us what it is; if you are hiding stuff, give us a second to try to find that out. Or let's go at it from the appropriations standpoint and bring those to the floor one at a time, as we should have.

Mr. CONAWAY. I appreciate my colleague from Kentucky joining us tonight to have this conversation among the several of us. I served on the Chamber of Commerce board in Midland for a number of years, and one of the things that the chamber looks at is the impact that payroll has on a community. There is a difference of opinion among folks on the chambers as to what this number ought to be, but there is a guess as to how many times that payroll turns over in a community. In other words, when the payroll is made, it is spent on local goods and services, and that person then turns around and spends it on local goods and services, and the range is, for most economic development guys, is between four times to seven times. Depending on the number you want to brag on, it will be somewhere in that range. So the payroll that gets created that my colleague from Kentucky was talking about a while ago where these small businesses add employees turns over several times within the community and creates additional jobs, additional opportunities and additional prosperity for those folks. It is interesting, I had a conversation this afternoon with my staff, and we are all anxiously awaiting the continuing resolution from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Chairman Obey of the Appropriations Committee posted on his Web site this afternoon that they did in fact file the continuing resolution. And my staff called, and we went to the Web site. They said it was filed. And me and my staff did. Of course, nothing is there. So my staff called over there and asked and they got kind of a runaround. So I said, well, I will just call. So I called, and I said, hi, this is Congressman Mike Conaway, and I would like to see a copy of the continuing resolution that has been filed. And the lady said, well, it has not been filed. I said, well, I am looking at a Web site for the Appropriations Committee, and it says they have filed. She said, well, I know. I am not sure why that is up there, but. I said, well, am I getting the runaround here? Is it really up there or not? She said, no, that is a mistake. It hasn't been filed. So, anyway, we are all awaiting the continuing resolution. In the meantime, we are all trying to guess at what might happen. And over at the Social Security Administration they are concerned about furloughing employees because the continuing resolution that they thought might be in place will fund them at lower levels than they have been expecting and so that they are going to have to lay off employees.

Mr. CONAWAY. Let me make a comment if I could on something that you had said. You talked about what hardworking Americans do with the money that they earn and keep; and you went through a litany of things that they buy, washers and dryers, cars and all these kinds of stuff. If you think about it, though, everything that they bought is made by somebody; and that person made a living making whatever it is they made. Then there is also a good string of, for lack of a better phrase, middlemen in between that product being made and it being sold to the American consumer, which is the ultimate driver of this economy. You have got truck drivers and warehousemen and storage handlers and retailers and a long list of people who take that finished product from wherever it is made, even if it is made overseas, from wherever it is made, and they get it all the way to that retailer's shelf, where an American consumer takes that money that he or she earned themselves and they go buy that product. That starts the cycle all over again that has built a growing economy that is now in its fourth year of growth; and if you look at the CBO estimates that the Budget Committee will talk about tomorrow, that growth is expected to continue over the next 10 years. Now, 10 years is about as far as we project anything. And like I said, I am a CPA, and I have been dealing with projections for a long time. Quite frankly, years 5 on through 10 are just mathematical exercises. I mean, who knows whether or not those are going to be correct or not? The 2007 estimate is pretty good. The 2008 estimate is pretty good. But, beyond that, it gets a little fuzzy as to the accuracy of those projections. But, nonetheless, those projections show an improving economy. Not only that, but the Federal Reserve as well shows an improving economy; and that is because people are out buying things, furnishing homes, buying cars, all the kinds of things the American consumer does to continue to drive this economy. The Federal Government, the best thing we can do is get out of the way. And one of the best things we can get out of the way of are tax increases, and there is a big one coming. You know there is a phrase out there, if a violent jihadist threatens your life, you probably ought to take him serious. Well, I think the same thing applies to tax increases. If somebody threatens you with a tax increase, then I think you ought to take them serious. And we are 1,433 days away from a significant tax increase. I now want to go to my good colleague from Kentucky. Geoff and I are in the same class. The 109th Congress was our first time here. And Geoff has got a big family, which in and of itself contributes to the economy, we appreciate that, of your part of Kentucky as well the rest of the United States. So, Geoff, share with us tonight what your thoughts are on taxes and the American people working.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, my sense from being around for a little better than 2 years now is that the reaction that was forced upon the Capitol Hill Police went against their nature. Their nature is to protect, not only to protect you and I and any other law-abiding citizen on these grounds, which is their job, but to protect these grounds as well. So it is inconceivable to me that our Capitol Hill Police, whose natural, normal reaction would be to stand back and let those spray-painters have at it, at the walls of this Capitol building. They had to have gotten some instructions from somewhere. And given the comments reflected in the paper today, that is clearly the case. They were told to stand down and not protect this building as is their nature and their love. These folks love their job and do a great job at it. And so I agree with my colleague.