K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak in recognition of the accomplishments of Rufus Johnson of Kerrville, Texas. Of African American and Cherokee descent, Mr. Johnson was born in Maryland in May of 1911 and faced adversity at a very early age. He lost his mother when he was 4 years old, but he never allowed any situation to dictate his path. After his mother passed away, Mr. Johnson was sent to live with his aunt and uncle in Pennsylvania. As a boy in Pennsylvania, he was forbidden to swim in the city pool. This cost him the much-coveted Boy Scouts of America Eagle rank because he could not earn the swimming merit badge. Mr. Johnson never forgot this missed opportunity; and, ironically, it was this missed opportunity that led him on his path to historical significance. Among his many life achievements, Mr. Johnson worked in the White House of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, served in the United States Army during World War II, and became a successful attorney. Immediately after enrolling at Howard University in Washington, D.C., he joined the Reserve Officers Training Corps, took swimming lessons and became a certified lifeguard. Mr. Johnson's certification won him a job as the White House pool lifeguard during FDR's Presidency. Having earned the respect and admiration of FDR, Mr. Johnson became his butler as well, a position that often included lifting the President from his chair. Mr. Johnson recalls with great respect the pride and independence of President Roosevelt. Mr. Johnson earned a place in White House history when a bowl of soup on a tray he was carrying tipped over and spilled on the President's lap. According to Mr. Johnson, it was Roosevelt himself who intentionally, but secretly, tipped the tray and caused the bowl to land on himself during the meeting. Mr. Johnson said FDR continued the conversation without pause and earned the respect of his adversary sitting at the dinner table with him. When First Lady Roosevelt learned that Mr. Johnson was preparing to take the bar exam, she had a desk set up in the White House to allow him to study for 2 hours every day. In October of 1942, he was called to active duty as a captain in the 92nd Infantry Division of African American soldiers. Mr. Johnson earned the admiration and respect of all who served with him and was awarded the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, and the Combat Infantry Badge, and received a special regimental citation for bravery. He was called to duty and served again during the Korean war, where he attained the rank of lieutenant colonel. After his service in the military, Mr. Johnson set up a law practice in California and also performed pro bono work. He argued successfully before the California Supreme Court in defense of the first amendment rights of American Indians. He won the decision, and it still stands today. Mr. Johnson relocated to Kerrville in 1994, where he still resides with his stepdaughter, Yvonne Smith. He turned 95 last May, and the Texas State Legislature and the White House paid tribute to him on his birthday. Tonight, I pay tribute to Rufus Johnson for his years of service to our Nation. He is a respected member of his community, and he has a life story that deserves to be remembered.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to using my best informed judgment in deciding how I vote on each bill that comes before the House of Representatives. My goal for securing the borders is to provide the U.S. Border Patrol with the right tools, assets, including fences and vehicle barriers, equipment, and number of agents to interdict every person trying to illegally cross into our country. We should approach meeting this goal in a systematic and thoughtful process. In my judgment, The Secure Fence Act does not do this. The first step is to thoroughly analyze what is needed along all of our borders to meet our goal. At a minimum, the Border Patrol should be asked to provide us with what they think in their professional judgment is needed to do their job. The Secure Fence Act starts this type of analysis as it relates to the northern and maritime borders with the requirement that the Department of Homeland Security spend the next year developing a rational program for meeting our goal as it relates to these borders. As for the southern border, the bill simply requires that 700 miles of fencing be built at locations fixed by the bill by May 2008. The bill set the amount of fencing for the southern border at 700 miles without properly consulting the Border Patrol, who knows best where a fence is needed. A proper analysis of the problem may show that we actually need 1,000 miles or it may show us that only 500 miles is needed to secure the border. In addition to knowing how much fencing is needed and where the fencing will be most effective, we should know how much the fencing is going to cost. At the time of the vote, the Congressional Budget Office had not determined how much the fencing and the other mandates in the bill are going to cost. While cost is not necessarily determinative of whether we should proceed, nevertheless it is an important consideration that should have been known before we voted on the bill. The bill designates specifically where the fencing is to be built in Texas. The communities where the fence is mandated to be constructed should have some input into this bill before the law was passed. Also, most of the border between Texas and Mexico is private property. We should have known what impact that will have on the cost of constructing the fence as well as how much of the property might have to be taken via eminent domain proceedings. One final note Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to try, although we are rarely successful, to work with members of the other party when we are developing public policy. Congressman Silvestre Reyes, a former Border Patrol sector chief from El Paso, voted against the bill, as did Congressmen Henry Cuellar, Ruben Hinojosa, and Solomon Ortiz, all of whom represent parts of the border. Mr. Speaker, I remain fully committed to securing the border. I am also committed to achieving that goal in the best and most cost effective manner possible. I will continue to work with my colleagues on securing our borders in the weeks ahead. It is important that we get it done as quickly as possible, but simply throwing up a costly fence without the proper planning is not the answer.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I want to thank Mr. Peterson for allowing me to speak today. To set the record straight, I love horses. I own a horse. In fact, my horse, Skychief Poco, and I won the 1997 SandHills Rodeo and quarter horse show team penning championship. I have got the wherewithal to let him live out his days in the pasture behind my house. But if you notice, I have used the possessive pronoun ``my'' each time I describe my horse. At its core, this isn't about people who love horses. This isn't about the American icon. This isn't about the kid who rides a carousel and wants to own a pony. This is about personal property rights. I have personal property that is a horse. He is not a pet necessarily. He is never going to be eaten, but that is not the issue here. The title of the bill on the other side makes constant reference to the Slaughter Prevention Act or Slaughter Protection Act. Nothing in the bill has anything to do with the actual slaughter of the horses, the euthanasia of the horse, not the methods. Because if we are talking about methods that need to do it better, let's do that. But this is an attack on the personal property rights of all horse owners out there in America. At its core, this is also about what happens to the carcass of a dead horse, whether it is an affront to the icon of America to process that horse carcass into food or whether to chop that horse up and put it in a landfill, or chop that horse up and bury it in your back yard. However you treat the carcass of that horse, that is really what this is about. This strips out the personal value, the personal property value of every horse owner that chooses to dispose of their horses in various ways and that we all should take great interest in how that is done. That is not what this bill does. This strips simply strips out my right, my personal property rights, to own that horse and dispose of him at the point when I want to. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. It is an attack on personal property rights without due process and is unfortunate. One other piece of this bill is that, which is added toward the end of it, is that if you have a horse that is sore, and you are at a competition or at an event, the Secretary of Agriculture is allowed to come take that horse from you. So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. It is ill conceived and should not pass.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I want to support this bill, H.R. 2730, for four reasons. One, it strengthens our ties between our Nation and Israel. These are mutually beneficial ties, and it is important that we continue to strengthen those ties on every level. I will also support this legislation because it promotes research across three very broad areas: One, alternative sources of energy, increases or improvements to energy efficiency, and then renewable sources of energy. Breakthroughs in any of these three can have a dramatic impact on the way we use fuel. The third reason I am going to support this is that while it does authorize $20 million a year over a 7-year period, there are payback or buyback provisions in the bill that allow for companies who benefit from seed money if they develop commercial applications of this research, they will pay this money back. And the fourth reason is that the authors have included a sunset provision in the bill that after 7 years it goes away. So for these important reasons, I am going to support this bill and encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that high praise indeed. I appreciate members of the Energy and Commerce Committee moving this bill along and moving it to the floor today with bipartisan support. I also want to thank the cosponsors of the bill, Fred Upton, Ralph Hall, Ed Towns and Gene Green, who helped work on this modest attempt to address the usage of gasoline in this country. Several speakers ahead of us this morning during the one minutes spoke very eloquently about the rising cost of gasoline. I think yesterday there was a report that it hit a record $3.02 a gallon on average across the United States. It seems as though we as consumers will begin to make decisions at $3 a gallon that we won't make at $2 a gallon, decisions we ought to make at $2 a gallon, but the concern about the money is not there in our heads to make that happen. This effort of a joint public-private educational effort has shown results in the past, as Mr. Shadegg has already mentioned, in California, the dramatic results they had; people just making informed decisions, decisions that they ought to make day in and day out, but they don't. There is a recent headline in the USA Today which said natural gas prices, not gasoline prices, but natural gas prices went down dramatically. Let me read one sentence out of that. ``Prices have fallen because natural gas supplies are far above normal after a mild winter and lower demand, leading to an inventory surge.'' Here is what we are trying to effect. If each one of us, each of us who drives a car in America this coming week and for the foreseeable future, would use just one gallon less of gasoline, you would see that impact. Inventories would begin to surge, and the prices would come down. When I am out at town halls and other places in the district, even from a district that represents Midland and Odessa, the crude oil and natural gas production capital of the world, that may be a bit over the top, but, nevertheless, an awful lot of crude oil produced in West Texas, even there, people complain about high gasoline prices. If all of us would collectively do small things, Mr. Shadegg mentioned a couple of those, several of them, we could have a dramatic impact on total gasoline demand. As demand goes down, inventories would rise; and as those inventories go up, the law of supply and demand takes over and the prices go down. We would have two benefits from that. One, the benefit we would get directly by actually spending less money on the gasoline for powering our cars; and then collectively we would benefit, the economy benefits as well as the ecology benefits. 2004, the last time we had statistics on that, we drove in America 2,962 billion miles, vehicle miles. You add all the cars up, the 243 million registered cars and trucks in this country, collectively we drove those many miles. With a volume of that size, modest reductions in the usage of gasoline or modest improvements in the efficiency of the usage of that gasoline can yield dramatic results. Each one of us, on average, drives about 12,000 miles a year. It works out to about 234 miles a week. If we could begin to do the things that would improve the efficiency with which we drive those miles, or simply drive a few miles less, on average, it is about 17 miles to the gallon. If we just drove next week 17 miles less in our car than we did this week, if all of us did it, then the impact we want to achieve on this would begin to happen. We are going to try to begin to convince the American gasoline users of this idea through media, print, television, Internet, Web sites, a variety of ways, to communicate the benefits of being smarter when you drive. Benefits like driving sensibly. If you are an aggressive driver, if you accelerate aggressively from stop signs and run the tachometer on your car above 2,000 RPMs, you will use more gasoline than you need to. So if you make a conscious effort to keep your tachometer below 2,000 RPMs a minute, you will use dramatically less gasoline. On average, the savings would be between 5 and 30 percent, which would save up to between 8 and 52 billion gallons of gasoline a year. If you observe the speed limit, something that we all do here in this body, I am sure, religiously, but if you simply observe the speed limit, you could save economy fuel benefits between 7 and 23 percent, another 12 to 40 billion gallons of gasoline a year. Excessive weight. These are some small things that most of us don't think about. But all that extra stuff that you haul around in the trunk of your car that ought to be stored in the garage, if you will take that weight out, you will improve your gasoline efficiency. In fact, the smaller your car, the greater that weight, then the differential is even bigger. So take all that extra weight out of the trunk of your car, and you will have savings there. If you also keep your car tuned and the filters changed, there are dramatic savings in those regards as well. Keeping the tires inflated, our colleague on the other side has mentioned the importance of tires and the impact that they have. So every one of these issues, each of us can choose to do our own. Particularly on our side of the aisle, we talk an awful lot about less government regulation, freedoms and personal choices. That is what we are talking about here. These are personal choices that you and I can make, not walking into work or not riding bicycles, not doing draconian kinds of things that really aren't going to work in the long run, but smart things that we can do, day in and day out, to begin to form a habit that allows us to use a little bit less gasoline than we would have otherwise used and also to keep money that we would spend on that gasoline. So I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a modest attempt to address the problem. The overall problem of gasoline costs and usage in this country needs a long-term solution. This is not what that is about. This is about something we can begin to do today and tomorrow to affect this problem. So I appreciate the Energy and Commerce Committee moving this bill forward, and I appreciate the sponsors that have helped with it.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support today of the Oman Free Trade Agreement. It is an important outreach and step that this country ought to be making and I think we will make. I would like to comment just briefly on a couple of the previous speakers. They appear to be relying on stock certificates to protect our ports. The truth of the matter is, I agree with them wholeheartedly that protecting our ports is in the vital interests of this country. No one would argue about that. But simply the fact who owns a particular company is scant comfort when it comes to control of the ports, as well as the security surrounding all of the ports. All the conduct that goes on, the goods and services are moved through there. The scheduling and the actual control of our security by the Coast Guard, to me is a much better way to secure our ports than simply worrying about the stock certificates of the companies that provide the services of scheduling, loading and unloading. The United States free trade agreement with Oman represents more than just simple economics and trade. Support for this agreement represents building a relationship and strengthening with a peaceful ally in the Middle East that has a proven track record. Let me run through a couple of things that I think are important when we talk about who is Oman and why should we enter into some sort of bilateral free trade agreement with Oman. Oman has been a proven leader in the Persian Gulf in establishing trade and other ties with Israel. Since 1970, Oman has pursued a moderate foreign policy and expanded its diplomatic relationships dramatically. Oman has also worked to develop close ties with its neighbors in the Middle East. Oman joined the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council when it was established and traditionally supports Middle East peace initiatives. In 1979, Oman supported the Camp David Accords and was one of only three Arab League states which did not break relationships with Egypt after the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in 1979. In April of 1994, Oman hosted the plenary meeting of the Water Working Group of the peace process and was the first gulf state to do so. On December 26, 1994, Oman became the first gulf state to host an Israeli Prime Minister, again trying to build on a relationship of peace with another important ally of ours in the Middle East. Oman has eliminated all aspects of the Arab boycott of Israel. In 2005 and 2006, senior Omani officials issued letters affirming that Oman has no boycott in place against Israel. Oman was one of the first regional states to offer recognition to the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council in 2003 and backed the Iraqi elections that took place in January 2005. This agreement with Oman illustrates the importance of trade liberalization and security cooperation, both of which further our national interests from an economic and security standpoint. We must not turn our backs on the peace-promoting leader in this region. Oman is dependable, and it is critical that we continue to build on this relationship. Please join me in supporting the previous question on the rule and in support of the Oman Free Trade Agreement that will be brought to the floor later today.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, after careful and thoughtful consideration, I could not in good conscience vote in support of H.R. 9, the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The 1965 VRA successfully protected minority voters from disenfranchisement and strengthened our democracy. I support that law and realize its valuable contributions to our society. Every citizen of this great Nation, regardless of race, should have the opportunity to cast their vote without fear of threats or discrimination. The VRA was a good idea and necessary in 1965, however, times have changed drastically since it was originally enacted more than 40 years ago. During the debate, a good friend of mine, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, made the comment: ``When you get sick, you go to the doctor and you get a prescription. Once you get well you stop taking the medicine.'' The provisions of the Voting Rights Act we voted on today do not recognize the accomplishments and progress made by covered States since the original VRA was enacted. Today, the majority of electoral discrimination cases come from outside the jurisdictions that are covered under Section 5. The Voting Rights Act up for debate today should have recognized the many changes and improvements in the American South. Under the bill that passed today, Texas remains one of only eight States subject to this gross infringement on State's rights. Today, Texas is one of the most diverse States in the entire Nation with thriving minority communities throughout the state. Not only do the reauthorized provisions in the VRA not take into account the progress that has been made, these provisions will be used as an unfunded mandate on southern States for the next 25 years. Legislation created in 1965 to fix a problem of that era, will still be in effect in 2032; far too long to pay a penalty for things that happened generations ago. I support the valuable history and importance of the Voting Rights Act that passed in 1965, but the discriminatory problems we face today were not addressed or considered in this reauthorization. I support most of the provisions and the spirit of the VRA; however, H.R. 9 does not advance our democracy and keeps in place the taints of previous generations that are no longer deserved.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, a couple of my colleagues and I tonight are going to spend a little bit of time talking about our Constitution, the founding principles on which this country is based, and a document that I am concerned that many of our colleagues in this Chamber are not as intimately familiar with as they should be. I have introduced H. Res. 883 to try to address this issue. The acronym for the act is called the AMERICA Act, A Modest Effort to Read and Instill the Constitution Again, which is a bit tortured, but at least it gets us going in the right direction. This resolution would require, or would encourage, each Member of the House and each staffer that works for a Member of the House to read the Constitution once a year. We hope to be voting on this in September during Constitution Week. But I want to talk about it tonight. Our Constitution sets forth the written set of fundamental principles about which this U.S. Government, the United States, is to be governed. It establishes the three branches of the government that function here at the Federal level. And it is considered the supreme law of the land. It is also the world's oldest written national constitution, and it confers upon Members of this body and the other body certain honors and certain great responsibilities. We in Congress write laws constantly to implement those fundamental principles, and every once in a while we propose amendments to change those fundamental principles. I, therefore, think it is important that each one of us be intimately familiar with what is in the Constitution. It is a relatively short document, about 2,500 words, and I would not consider it an onerous task for my colleagues and I to at least once a year read that Constitution. Before I came to Congress, I practiced as a CPA, Certified Public Accountant, and I still maintain that license. I am required as part of the licensing process of the State to participate in 40 hours of continuing professional education each year. I just finished that up this week for my license renewal. And I think that most professions have that. I think that it is a modest step toward a continuing education process or program for Members of Congress, that being required or being encouraged, excuse me, to read the Constitution once a year would be a good thing to do. So this resolution, which I am hoping to gather support for, because I am curious as to who would push back or what the arguments would be from our colleagues as to why we shouldn't know what is in the Constitution, why we shouldn't be familiar with what is in the Constitution, why that is in the best interest of the 651,000 people that they represent here in this body. So I would encourage other Members to sign on to this legislation that would encourage each one of us and our staffers, the senior staffers and others, to read the Constitution once a year and help us understand the differences between the way this government looks today versus what that Constitution requires.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding this time. I rise in support of the rule and also the underlying bill. It is interesting that the other side is trying to speak out of both sides of their mouth on the fact they rail on the President constantly for not having used his veto power, and yet the previous speakers also talk about vetolike power being somehow ceding congressional responsibility to the President. I do not think you can have it both ways. Support this decision line item veto because it does apply to all spending. In addition, the spending that would be singled out for this treatment would actually not be spent somewhere else if it were upheld, and it would actually go against reducing the deficit. In addition, just the threat of this would act as deterrent to those Members who would put things into a particular appropriations bill or a spending bill that would be embarrassing for the President to single it out during his line item veto process. So I rise in support of the rule and also the underlying bill and encourage my colleagues to join me.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for the recognition. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of this legislation. I also appreciate his hard work in bringing this to the floor. I would like to make a couple of points. One, it seems the bit twisted logic for the folks on the other side to argue that the President shouldn't have these authorities that are presented in this bill, but yet at the same time gripe that he hasn't used the veto it already has, it doesn't seem to me you can have it both ways. I am in favor of this legislation because it does apply to all spending, both discretionary and direct, and it gives the President an opportunity to help us help ourselves in this regard. A third point is that these savings actually will reduce the deficit. Unlike many of the opportunities that we take to try to reduce appropriations bills where that money simply stays within that pot of money and ultimately gets spent, this money would actually not get spent and therefore have a direct impact on the deficit. The last point is that, with these powers, I can assure you that would act as a self-limiting deterrent to frivolous earmarks that might be proposed. None of us are going to want to be on the President's top 10 list when with this power he lists out the five projects in a single bill or the 10 projects in an omnibus bill. That is a distinction and a recognition that no one is going to want to have. So I think my colleagues would be much more diligent in their requests for special spending that this would address. So I rise today in favor of H.R. 4890 and urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution that we are debating, I would like to focus on point four of the resolution that declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq. I think it is helpful for us to look back at some milestones over the last year or so to help us understand how far we have actually come. We went there to take Saddam Hussein out of power. He is now in jail and on trial for his life. We got that done. In January of 2005 we held the first election for a transitional government. That got done. Their job was to write a Constitution. At each and every one of these steps there was great anxiety that the Iraqi people couldn't get it done. They got their Constitution written in August of 2005. The next step was a referendum on that Constitution. They got that done. Then we held national elections under that Constitution in December of 2005. Again, ahead of that election there was grave concern that the Iraqis couldn't do it. But they went to the polls and elected that government. When I was there in April, the concern at that point in time was that they couldn't pick a prime minister, the next big step to the road to democracy in Iraq. That got done. Two weeks ago when I was there, the final point was they couldn't find a minister of defense or a minister of interior to lead those very important ministries, but they have gotten that done. By any evaluation, we have a long stretch of historic milestones that are proof that the Iraqi people are up to the task. A CODEL I participated in, our job was to go over there and get a sense of whether the Iraqi Army was standing up to the task. We met with a General Bashir at his base at Tajik and found a very professional individual. He was very candid in his remarks on where the Iraqi Army was up to that point in time. As I watched the staffers, his staff in the room, I tried to assess them as best I could. I found professionals with a quiet sense of confidence that they could lead, fight and defend their country. We are making this happen, and we are completing this mission in Iraq. I support this resolution and I ask that each of my colleagues all support it because a free, sovereign, united Iraq will make the Middle East a safer place to be, and by extension it will make America a safer place to be. So I rise in support of this resolution and ask my colleagues to vote for it. I, too, like Mrs. Drake ask God's blessings on our country and in particular on our fine young men and women who are fighting this fight.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 9, 2006, I missed rollcall vote numbers 242 through 250 regarding the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 242, ``no'' on rollcall 243, ``yes'' on rollcall 244, ``no'' on rollcall 245, ``no'' on rollcall 246, ``no'' on rollcall 247, ``no'' on rollcall 248, ``no'' on rollcall 249, and ``yes'' on rollcall 250.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, rural America needs broadband now more than ever. The information society is in full swing with an abundant amount of choices and access to the infinite sources of information, yet there are those who may not have the same access to information and will therefore be left out in the cold. As we move away from dial-up Internet to broadband via cable modem, DSL, satellite, and fiber-based networks, Congress should be enacting legislation that encourages broader network deployment. Without the proper economic incentives and regulatory environment, rural America will be left behind when the next generation networks are built. That is why we must pass the COPE Act tonight. Not only does COPE open competition in the video market, but it also includes the proper regulatory light touch and the right incentives to foster the deployment of advanced networks. More importantly, it creates incentives to build out these networks without the spending of government funds. It is time to pass this bill and get broadband deployment moving in the right direction, the direction of rural America.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentlewoman for the opportunity to talk tonight. I thank her for hosting this time and my other colleagues who have spoken. Let me set the framework for why it is important that we are doing what we are doing. I have six grandchildren and a seventh one on the way. And you look at a CBO study, a Congressional Budget Office study, you look at an Office of Management and Budget study, you look at the GAO, Government Accountability Office study, every single one of those studies shows a pretty frightening picture for the next 50 years. My oldest grandson will be, in 2050, 45 years from now, he will be where we are. It will be his responsibility and his world to live, kind of where we are right now. And if you believe these three sets of estimates, which they are very credible, it would show that left unchecked this Federal Government will consume half the gross domestic product of this country. There has never been a free market enterprise anywhere in history where the central government can take half and you and I can take the other half and continue to prosper, continue to grow, continue to have a standard of living that grows with the other half. It just does not work. We are currently at about 20 percent of GDP, and in my way of thinking, that is the gag threshold. We are about where we can be and still maintain healthy opportunities for the rest of the world. I want those opportunities for my grandchildren. It is incumbent upon us. We received those from our parents and grandparents, and I think to do anything less is particularly unworthy of us. David Walker who heads up the GAO told us this morning in a meeting that the financial statements of the Federal Government this year will show unfunded liabilities of some $50 trillion. That is a combination of hard debt that gets talked a lot about in this body with Treasury bills and notes and a few bonds that are out there and the debt that is owed to Social Security. But the unfunded promises to Social Security, the unfunded promises to Medicare and Medicaid, the various unfunded responsibilities that we add up, add to constantly in this body, represent about $50 trillion. And that is a staggering amount of money. We are going to have to hit this on a lot of fronts in order to adjust our way of doing things and to trim this growth in this Federal Government. It is going to require some budgetary reform: things like sunset review process; things like line item veto or enhanced rescission powers for the President. That will be helpful. We also have to address the automatic programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Those programs continue to grow automatically every year unless we do something, take some positive action. We took a little bit of positive action last year with the Deficit Reduction Act in which we trimmed about $37 billion out of that growth. It was a Herculean effort. If you listen to the rhetoric on both sides, quite frankly we bragged a little bit too much and in contrast the other side screamed and hollered and predicted gloom and doom way too much because that $36 billion if you look at the growth rates and you put it on a line chart, you could barely distinguish the before and after lines on that chart. It was $36 billion, and we bragged about it; but it was a very modest, at best, attempt at doing what we all collectively know that we have got to do, to make some hard choices. My bill would help us begin to make priority choices for new programs. We do a very terrible job of setting priorities with existing spending. Katrina relief versus food stamps. The war fight versus whatever. We just don't do that very well. Have a hard time saying no. But it seems like we ought to begin to practice saying no or practice setting priorities on new programs. And I appreciate you bragging on that bill. You mentioned spring cleaning. We are also going to start a thing called Project Dave. Project Dave comes from the movie ``Dave'' in which a surrogate President is brought in because the President has had some sort of stroke of some sort and he is a look alike, somebody who looks exactly like the President. He comes in and he is a rookie. He does not know all the things that you cannot do in the Federal Government. And he begins to kind of grow into his job. He is in a budget meeting or hearing and he brings some commonsense kind of background to the table and begins to whack programs. Of course the bureaucrats, the executive branch folks are saying, you cannot do that. He said, why not? I am the President. So he begins to cut spending all over the place. So we have got a list, the President has given us a list of about 150 programs that he wants to see cut that have out lived their usefulness. One of them that comes to mind is the job bank that the Labor Department continues to run, an Internet job bank. We spend about $15 million a year on maintaining an Internet job bank. Anybody who has looked for a job knows that there are huge resources, private sector resources for there for Internet job banks. Why would we continue to run one ourselves? Let's take that $15 million and leave it with the taxpayers or reduce the deficit. All the kinds of good things that will happen. I am looking forward to working with the gentlewoman in this spring cleaning that ought to go about helping to shine some spotlights on things that we should not be doing, things that really are not the role of this Federal Government. It is going to be difficult, as I mentioned how hard it was to pass the Deficit Reduction Act, but that is the kind of hard work this Republican group can do. Let me finish off by saying that I am not a doom and gloom person. The glass is always half full. I drive my staff and family crazy because I am so optimistic. We can fix these problems. These are not beyond us. This is not rocket science. It is straight-up budgeting. If you have a revenue problem and a spending problem causing the deficit, we are fixing the revenue side. It is just fine. It is percolating along just fine. We simply have a spending problem. We have to begin to say no. So I am very optimistic that this Republican-led House, this Republican-led Senate and a President in the White House that we can make major strides in addressing this very critical issue. That is not an over- statement. This body takes over-statement and hyperbole and puffing to an art form. I tell people that the single greatest threat that we face to our way of life is not al Qaeda. It is not the terrorists. They will not change our way of life. They may hurt some of us. But we will get them in the end. The single biggest threat to our way of life, to my grandchildren's way of life, is the growth in Federal Government, the growth in spending. That does have the capacity to change our way of life. And it will take some tough decisions on our part to get this done, and we owe it to my grandkids and your grandchildren if you have them to get that work done. I appreciate being able to pitch in on this tonight.

Mr. CONAWAY

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

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, currently rural communities across America are being forced to comply with extremely costly regulations regarding arsenic and radionuclide standards that have been established by the EPA. There is no data available to support the assertions made by the EPA that these regulations materially protect public health and safety. I am concerned that the current EPA rules are not supported by public health information, that the results from unvalidated mathematical models are used to support these rules, and that the rules are unnecessarily creating a category of radioactive waste for which there is currently no approved method of disposal. Mr. Chairman, my comments are supported by the EPA's own statement and the notice of data availability document from April of 2000. ``EPA recognizes the inherent uncertainties that exist in estimating health impacts at the low levels of exposure, and the exposure rates expected to be present in the environment. EPA also recognizes that at these levels, the actual health impact from ingested radionuclides will be difficult if not impossible to distinguish from natural disease incidences, even using very large epidemiological studies employing sophisticated statistical analysis. Mr. Chairman, I believe the rural communities are not protected, but rather are harmed by water standards that allegedly promote health at the expense of economic well being. I have rural constituents who are currently paying 770 percent more for water service than that of urban populations due to the regulatory burdens placed on them by EPA. Small water suppliers cannot comply with these standards. Current consumer rates will inevitably result in the loss of customers, and poor families will be forced to go back to using unregulated shallow ground water and dirt tanks for human and livestock consumption. As more people exit these systems, the costs for the remaining customers will continue to rise. Currently, the EPA exempts water systems with fewer than 25 users. I believe we should extend that exemption to water systems that service fewer than 10,000 users. This would provide hope for the viability of small rural systems and the areas and communities they serve. The current requirements reach far beyond what is reasonable and are bankrupting local governments.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent now to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you agree that sound science, not unproven theories be at the root of our Federal drinking water rules. Families in rural communities should not be required to pay thousands of additional dollars each year to comply with regulations that are founded in theory rather than in fact.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about an issue that is in every paper and on every television program almost, on every news channel, and that is the supply of oil and gas that this country not only uses but in particular produces. For 25 years now, we have used this appropriations bill to unnecessarily restrict access by those who would explore for oil and gas to lands and properties and, in this instance, the Outer Continental Shelf, where it is clear that significant supplies of oil and natural gas exist. The additional production that would be gained from these areas is self-evident as to the values of it, not only the balance of payment, because every MCF of gas that we produce from these lands would offset gas that is imported, and any number of jobs are created when we are drilling for oil and gas on our own properties and our own lands. The industry's safety record over the last 25 years has continued to improve. The risks to the beaches in this area off the gulf coast of Mexico is de minimis. The safety record is exemplary not only in the drilling phase but also in the production phase. With respect to the production phase, you cannot paint a worse scenario to go through the Gulf of Mexico and destroy those production platforms than Hurricane Katrina in August. As a result of the sub-sea engineering that is in place to protect against oil and gas spills, when Hurricane Katrina came through and destroyed many of the production facilities, there was no release of crude oil and natural gas into the environment. The estimates for the amounts of oil and gas in this region range from trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil, all of which would go to reduce America's dependence on imported crude oil and natural gas. So my amendment would simply strike these provisions that have unnecessarily restricted access to these waters.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. It was my intent to withdraw this amendment but after a discussion with my colleague from Florida. If I could have that discussion, sir.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of cooperation with my colleague from Florida and the chairman, and in the interest of working on a comprehensive solution that addresses the supply issues that face our Nation, as well as the States' rights issues that are very legitimate concerns as to where the drilling begins off a particular State's coast, and the opportunity to allow each State to make that decision for their own, as Texas has done for many, many years, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the centennial anniversary of the Brownwood Texas Chamber of Commerce. Brownwood began as a pioneer town in the 19th century. As the town's population flourished, the cotton industry dominated. With the building of the West Texas District Alliance Cotton Yard and the establishment of the Freeman's Journal, Brownwood became the center of the Farmer's Alliance. In 1906, local farmers chartered the Brownwood Commercial Club, later renamed the Brownwood Area Chamber of Commerce. The Brownwood Chamber is instrumental in helping the community flourish. In 1940, they negotiated the home of Camp Bowie, a World War II training camp for the Army, housing 57,000 soldiers and civilians. After the camp closed, the Chamber created an industrial park that today houses 3M, Kohler, and other corporations which employ hundreds of people at their Brownwood facilities, greatly contributing to the prosperity of the community. The Brownwood Chamber continues to serve as a vital organization within the community. I congratulate them on their centennial anniversary, and I am proud to represent Brownwood in Congress.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I have recently introduced H. Res. 690, which would require this body to begin setting priorities. That is something the Federal Government, and Congress in particular, do not do a very good job at. In fact, we are really lousy at it, but it seems to me if we are able to set priorities on new spending, then we ought to be able to practice what H. Res. 690 would do which is require the House that anytime we create a new program of any size or scope, that we would have to, as part of that enacting legislation, eliminate an existing program of the same size or spending. We have tough choices to make, but we just do not make those choices very well. You can look at the CBO's Web site. They publish a 50-year study of what they think this Federal Government will look like in the year 2050. I have a grandson that will be about 53 years old at that point in time. The government that he will inherit, left unchecked, left unchanged, will be one that consumes 50 percent of the gross domestic product in this country, and there has never been a free market, free enterprise system anywhere where the central government could take half and the rest of us passed on the other half. We prosper by having growth in the standard of the living, opportunities and others kinds of things. So I believe that the growth in this Federal Government is the single biggest threat that we face as a country to our particular way of life. That sounds strange in a country at war, but the Taliban and al Qaeda and the thugs that threaten this country can get a few of us, but they cannot fundamentally change the way we live. They can hurt some of us and they try, and we work real hard to not let that happen, but this growth in this Federal Government I believe can in fact have a fundamental negative impact on the way our children and grandchildren will live. I said I am a grandfather. I've got six wonderful grandkids and one additional one on the way which will be born in November, if everything goes well. Which grandfather or grandmother among us would gather up their grandchildren, take them down to the nearest bank, and say, Mr. Banker, I want to borrow every single dollar in your bank, I want these six grandkids in my case, I want my six grandchildren to sign that note. I am going to take the money and spend it, but you are going to need to look to them to collect it. Well, there is not a grandparent worth their salt that would do that on an individual basis, but somehow collectively as a group we think that is okay because that is exactly what we are doing as we continue to spend money that our children will have to probably not pay back but will at least have to pay the debt service on and that impacts their way of life in a negative way. Every politician worth their salt will step before this microphone and say we need to cut Federal spending. It rolls off your tongue very easily. Both sides of the aisle say this on various occasions, but we rarely practice what we preach. I would like to point out tonight one program that I think would go away and no one would even notice that it is gone. We have in this country appropriated for 2006 money to provide an America's Job Bank. This is an Internet-based listing of job openings nationwide. It is maintained by good folks at the Department of Labor. Since this was established, the Internet of course has grown exponentially and has created such private enterprise-based sites as monster.com and careerbuilder.com which provide thousands and thousands and thousands of listings every day; and, in fact, this America's Job Bank is a duplication. Now the duplication only costs us $15 million, and that is a standard politician phrase, ``only $15 million.'' Well, $15 million is a lot of money for District 11 and is a program that I would include in those that ought to go away. As I mentioned, I have introduced H. Res. 690. We are working with the Rules Committee to try to implement this rule for the 110th Congress, and I would encourage my colleagues to support it. The reason I am doing it is I have got six grandchildren and one more on the way, and I cannot think of a better reason why we should not begin to do a better job in setting priorities for spending at in this Congress.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk a little about the role of government in a growing economy. To my way of thinking, that role is to just basically get out of the way. A growing economy is one in which the Tax Code is in a circumstance where it is not an overt burden on it. Not to say that our current Tax Code is perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but these low tax rates and these tax concepts we put in place in 2001 and 2003 have in no small part added to the growing economy that we currently have. We don't want to talk today about the regulatory burdens and interference that families and businesses have from government, but those should be counted in the cost as well and get those out of the way. When you put the pro-growth policies in place that we have had, you get some startling results. We have 17 straight quarters of growth, as measured by the GDP. We have 5 million new jobs that have been created. Unemployment across the Nation is at 4.8 percent, which many think is full employment. Actually, in District 11, which I represent, the unemployment rate is zero, for anyone who wants a job. And a record number of Americans are working today. A record number of Americans are working and paying taxes. A little aside on the importance of a job, I spent a lot of time in west Texas working on United Way issues and other social service issues, and it has been my experience that when a family has a job that family is better off. That family is able to provide for itself, to make its own decisions about how it wants to conduct its life, and when those individual families are better off then the neighborhoods are better off and the communities are better off as well. So 5 million jobs should not go unnoticed as a startling number in a growing economy. In conclusion, I think we see that the pro-growth tax policies we have put in place have created record revenues. We will collect more money this year than in any other year in our Nation's history, collecting and growing it in the correct way, more taxpayers paying tax rates at a lower number. What we have is a spending problem and not a revenue problem. This budget addresses discretionary spending in a modest way, and it also addresses the mandatory spending in an even more modest way. But they are steps in the right direction, and this new mandatory spending will be the first time ever we have done it twice in a row, and I urge my colleagues to support this budget resolution.