Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate once again the opportunity to come before the House of Representatives tonight and bring the latest version of the Official Truth Squad.

You have heard a lot of information over the last hour, much of which, in terms of its tenor and its tone, was the genesis for the Official Truth Squad, because what we as Republican freshmen Members of Congress determined about a year or a little over a year ago was that there was an awful lot of disinformation and misinformation and distortion and demagoguery and division, attempting to divide the Nation in such a way that it did a disservice to everybody. And, Mr. Speaker, you have heard an awful lot of that over the last hour.

We have got some very serious things to talk about tonight, but I wanted to spend a few moments and just try to lower the temperature a little bit, try to decrease the calamity that you have just heard. You have heard a lot of discussion about all sorts of issues, mostly national security issues. You have heard some claims about the 9/11 Commission and how none of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission have been proposed or adopted by Congress.

But what the Official Truth Squad is all about is about truth. It is about fact. It is about real things. And one of our favorite quotes comes from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who had just a great quote. He said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. And that is important, Mr. Speaker, because when you hear all these things, these accusations and incredible distortions that are leveled, very rarely are they ever rooted in fact.

And I am here to give you a few instances of fact, and I just want to spend a few moments to talk about national security and the 9/11 Commission recommendations because the distortions have been phenomenal.

We have on the other side of the aisle, the Democrat side of the aisle, a leader who has said within the last 2 weeks that she didn't believe that the capture of Osama bin Laden would make America any safer. That is a stunning statement from the individual who wants to be third in line to the Presidency, a stunning statement. She has also, as well as so many individuals on the other side have, called for the implementation of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Well, in fact, what they ought to do is look in the mirror or talk to their colleagues, because Capitol Hill Democrats have repeatedly, repeatedly opposed legislation implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that were meant to strengthen America's national security and prevent further terrorist attacks. And I have just got a couple of them here for you, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to share with you.

The 9/11 Commission stated: ``The government has made significant strides in using terrorism finance as an intelligence tool.''

Yet the Democrats voted, 174 of them voted ``no.'' Voted ``no'' for the bill that would allow us to continue to use that kind of intelligence in making certain that we can capture terrorists, find terrorists. ``No.''

The 9/11 Commission recommendation, they call for its adoption and its implementation. We propose it on the floor of the House in a responsible way, in a positive way to try to make America safer, and what do the vast majority of the Democrats on the other side of the aisle do? Vote ``no,'' 174 of them.

The 9/11 Commission says, ``The REAL ID Act has established statute standards for State-issued IDs acceptable for Federal purposes, though State compliance needs to be closely monitored.''

So the REAL ID Act that this House passed that was signed into law with the good work of a Republican House and a Republican Senate and signed by the President, how many folks on the other side of the aisle, our good friends who have just been clamoring for adoption of the 9/11 recommendations, how many supported it? Well, I will tell you that 152, the vast majority of them, voted ``no,'' voted ``no'' on the REAL ID Act.

Again, the 9/11 Commission says, the House and the Senate have taken positive steps, but Secretary Chertoff and his team still report to too many bosses. The House and the Senate Homeland Security Committees should have exclusive jurisdiction over all counterterrorism functions of the Department of Homeland Security.

And when that recommendation of the 9/11 Commission is proposed on the floor of the House, where are our friends on the other side of the aisle who clamor over and over for adoption of these recommendations? The majority of them, 120, vote ``no,'' vote ``no,'' Mr. Speaker.

So as a member of the Official Truth Squad, as an individual who has been frustrated, when I go home and talk to folks, they want us to work together. And I encourage individuals to work together. These are not Republican problems that we have or Democrat problems, they are American problems, they are American challenges.

So I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to throw fewer stones, throw fewer barbs, be less political. I know it is an election season, and that is fine, but there are real problems and real challenges to solve.

We have real solutions, and we encourage and invite our colleagues on

the other side of the aisle to indeed join us in solving these issues, especially, especially in the area of national security.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be joined tonight by a number of individuals who want to talk about a very, very serious issue as it relates to not just our Nation, but indeed the world. And that is, again, an attempt to try to lower the temperature, try to lower the pressure points and talk objectively and within reason about the issue of nations, about the issue of religion, about the issue that has grown into a firestorm with the Pope's comments that I believe have been taken out of proportion.

And to open that, I would like to just share a comment from the Pope. And we all know the comments that have been made and how they have been taken most recently. And the quote that I find most instructive from the Pope is this. It says, ``For the careful reader of my text, it is clear that I in no way wanted to make mine the negative words pronounced by the medieval emperor, and their polemical content does not reflect my personal conviction.''

I think that is a powerful statement, Mr. Speaker. Powerful statement. And what the Pope has attempted to do, I believe, is to try to talk within reason about the issue of religion and about the issue of politics, because it is extremely important for us as a world at this stage right now.

The response that has been received, however, has not been as reasoned. And this is a quote from a branch of al Qaeda, and it is troubling, Mr. Speaker, it is troubling, these words. ``We tell the worshiper of the cross, the Pope, that you and that the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq and Afghanistan and Chechnya. We shall break the cross and spill the wine. God will help Muslims to conquer Rome. God, enable us to slit their throats and make their money and descendants the bounty of the Mujahadin.''

That is a quote, Mr. Speaker. So I would call on all individuals of goodwill, all Christians, all Jews, all Muslims, all members of any religion around the world to take a deep breath, to take a step back. This kind of verbal assault does nothing to assist us in the world community to solve any of the challenges that we have.

I would point to a comment that was in the L.A. Times where they noted that the Pope paused twice during his speech to remind the audience that he was quoting another individual and departing from his prepared text. The Pope twice reminded the audience that he was quoting someone else, an indication that he was clearly aware of the sensitivity of his comments.

Finally, there was a press communication that was put out by the Vatican that said that the Pope's option in favor of interreligious and intercultural dialogue is equally unequivocal. In his meeting with representatives of the Muslim communities in Cologne, Germany, on August 20, 2005, he said that such dialogue between Christians and Muslim ``cannot be reduced to an optional extra. The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other's identity.''

So it is in that context, Mr. Speaker, that we open the discussion tonight with some good colleagues and good friends who are reasoned in their discussion and their perspective on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by many of them this evening. I wish to introduce and yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), who I, as just a freshman member of the Republican Conference, have found to be a stalwart individual, individual who truly speaks the truth, and an individual whom I know her heart is good. I yield to my good friend, Congresswoman Hart from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important that we appreciate that those were not the Pope's words, correct?

Mr. Speaker, I think that is incredibly important. I do not think we can repeat that often enough, given the response that has been seen. These were not the Pope's words. He was using this quote from 600 years ago as an instructive tool.

I yield.

Absolutely. I appreciate so much the importance of connecting faith and reason, because I think that is what the Pope has challenged all of us to do is to reflect upon our own faith.

Clearly we are in a point in this world now where there are individuals who are not desirous of joining faith and reason together. And so I think we ought to be commending the Pope for bringing forward this incredibly important issue that will allow us, should we be able to navigate these waters well, that will allow us to continue to survive in a world at peace.

Which is, in fact, the end point in the goal of all of the great religions.

I welcome my good friend from Pennsylvania, as well, Dr. Murphy, joining us this evening. I look forward to his comments.

What a wonderful picture you paint. I thank you so much for those remarkable words. It is not often that we get the opportunity here in Congress to talk about these overarching issues and matters that come before us. And what a beautiful quote you read from the father of our country, George Washington, to talk about conscience and to talk about religious liberty and religious freedom. If ever there was a nation that was founded upon the principle of religious tolerance, I would suspect that it is indeed the United States of America. And maybe it is this discussion tonight that begins that call to individuals truly across America and around the world to enter into that dialogue that you talk about, because it is so extremely important that we turn away from the sword, that we move toward a path of discussion and dialogue and of joining together faith and reason so that we can walk together in peace as opposed to challenge each other to arms which was so distressing, as you mentioned, to see at the United Nations today. I was so distressed to see so many of the comments that were made there.

We are joined as well by my dear friend and colleague in the freshman class, Mr. Fortenberry from Nebraska, who is a man of deep faith, I know, and a dear friend. I look forward to your comments on our discussion this evening.

I thank the gentleman so much from Nebraska for those comments and for that experience.

I think that we can all hearken back to those times in our lives when we shared those experiences with individuals of a different faith and recognize when you get right down to it, the core of each of the great religions in this world is the ability or the call to live together in peace. I think that is what the Pope was attempting to move us as a world in the direction of discussing that.

I yield to my good friend from Pennsylvania.

I thank you so much. The silence truly has been deafening, and it is disappointing and it is disconcerting. But as a Christian, but a non-Catholic, I have struggled and attempted to find folks who have a perspective on what has occurred over the past number of days, and there are a couple individuals that I find that have given some hope. Some people have called back through history and brought my attention back to the fact that religions can grow, that spirituality can grow.

There is a quote that I would like to share before I yield again from Michael Potemra, who said, ``The Koran is one of the loveliest books ever written, a distillation of monotheism that is full of spiritual wisdom, and I never fail to profit from the reading of it. But the global mainstream of Koran interpretation stresses passages that are harmful and slights those that are irenic. The Pope's words approached without quite touching this unpleasant truth. As a result of the current riots, there will be even more Western voices calling for `a clash of civilizations against Islam itself.' Before we decide that Islam cannot be saved from its darker side, we should call to mind Christian history. Less than 150 years ago, Pope Pius IX was still formally condemning freedom of religion as a heretical notion, and John Calvin, the spiritual progenitor of the theology of America's Founding Fathers, ran a cruel theocracy in Geneva that, among other things, executed the theologian Servetus for his heresy.''

I might not agree with all of that. However, I think it is important to appreciate his conclusion, and that is that ``religions acted on by the spirit can change and our Muslim brothers and sisters needs our prayers and they need us to support the forces among them that are resisting the lure of religious hatred.''

That ends the quote. I would be happy to yield to my good friend from Nebraska.

I appreciate those comments. We have been joined by some others.

I yield to my good friend from Pennsylvania for their introduction.

We welcome the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) to this discussion, an individual who has great wisdom, and we look forward to your comments.

I thank the gentleman for his comments and appropriate perspective and call once again for dialogue which I think is the underlying message that we would deliver this evening, and that is, that faith must be connected to reason and that dialogue between peoples is what will bring us to a peaceful solution.

I welcome my good friend, the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), once again great friends from Pennsylvania joining us tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania for joining us this evening and for those wonderful, wonderful words of wisdom.

We have just a very few short moments left. In closing, let me just thank my good friend also from Pennsylvania Congresswoman Hart who truly organized this activity this evening. I think this has been a remarkable discussion. It has been a lofty discussion. It truly has been a privilege to come to the floor, and the privilege of service is indeed the privilege of leadership.

I guess if I were to summarize I would say that what we call our colleagues to this evening is, in fact, not just our colleagues, but all Members of the civilized world, is to an appreciation that faith and reason go hand-in-hand and that dialogue is what is absolutely necessary if we are to solve the remarkable challenges that we have as a diverse world.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a glorious and a wonderful Nation. It is a Nation of religious liberty. It is a Nation that continues to be a beacon of hope and a vessel of liberty truly to the world. The opportunity that we have here is remarkable in order to initiate that new dialogue, and it is a privilege to come to the floor Mr. Speaker.

If I may, I want to call on you and I ask all of our colleagues and all of the individuals watching in this time, in this very, very challenging time of an election season here in the United States, that the comments that you have heard before we began our discussion 59 minutes ago and the comments you are about to hear are most likely one of division, of disinformation and of misinformation. I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to raise the level of rhetoric, raise the level of discussion and debate in this body so that we may indeed join together and solve the remarkable challenges that we have as a Nation.

Madam Speaker, this week we will consider legislation that the American people have made clear must be addressed to solve the illegal immigration crisis in our country. For too long, the security and well-being of our Nation has been compromised by open and porous borders.

After months of field hearings and listening to our constituents' concerns, it is clear that Americans from Savannah to Seattle and from San Diego to Syracuse demand tighter border security and stronger immigration laws. Last week, we passed the Secure Fence Act to tackle the problem of illegal aliens coming across the border, and three bills will be brought to the floor this week to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the tools needed to further deal with this crisis. I call on all of my colleagues here and in the Senate to pass these critical pieces of legislation.

Madam Speaker, no longer can we allow an attitude of indifference toward the sovereignty of our borders. We should pass these bills and speak loudly to those wishing to break our laws that their actions will no longer be tolerated by the United States.

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to come back before the House as representative of the majority party. And as I was sitting and listening to the tail end of my good friends on the other side of the aisle with their recitation of doom and gloom, Madam Speaker, I was reminded of a radio personality who has a wonderful program on daily. He comes on and he introduces his program by saying, ``And now for the rest of the story.''

So, Madam Speaker, I come before you tonight and before the House with another version of the Official Truth Squad. The Official Truth Squad began a little over a year ago with a group of freshmen Republicans in the United States House of Representatives who had, frankly, grown tired of the lack of response to the disinformation and the misinformation and the distortion and the demagoguery and the hyperbole that we hear over and over and over on the House floor. And, Madam Speaker, you have been treated to a particularly virulent form of that kind of disinformation and misinformation in the past hour.

Before I get into the comments that I had prepared for this evening to talk a little bit about national security and talk about our economy, I do want to point out a couple of items for those folks in the House who are listening and have just heard the comments on the floor.

I think it is important to make certain that we talk about the truth, and when we talk about the truth, I am reminded of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous quote. It is one of my favorites. Senator Moynihan was a Democratic Senator from the State of New York, and he said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Is that not true, Madam Speaker? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

So I am here to point out just a few of the opinions that we have heard this evening that, in fact, bear no resemblance to the truth and bear no resemblance to fact, but that are so divisive to us as a Nation. That is what concerns me, Madam Speaker.

My background is as a physician. I came to Congress after over 20 years practicing medicine, and I knew that when I dealt with my patients and when I dealt with my colleagues, that we had to talk about the truth. We had to talk about real things. We had to talk about facts, because when you did not talk about facts, then you made the wrong diagnosis, and when you make the wrong diagnosis, somebody gets hurt. Somebody gets hurt.

So, Madam Speaker, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want to talk about the facts, and they do not want to talk about the

truth, then somebody gets hurt, and in this instance it is the American people. It may even be the American fiber and the American spirit, the unity of America.

What we just heard is a remarkable demonstration of disunity, of division, of folks who, I do not know how long people have been listening, but I did not hear a single solution, not one solution offered.

Churchill said that criticism is easy; it is achievement that is difficult. Another one of my favorite quotes. Criticism is easy, but achievement is difficult.

You just heard a remarkable statement, and we have had a remarkable day with our President going to the United Nations and addressing the United Nations in his annual address. Because we are the host Nation, there is a defined time for that annual address, and it occurs in second speaking order. So it happened to occur during the middle of the day today. My friends on the other side of the aisle want to attribute the fact that the President was not on prime-time television tonight to some remarkable foible of this administration. Madam Speaker, what kind of nonsense is that? What kind of distortion of the truth is that?

So when we hear these kinds of things, it really disturbs me, it saddens me, because it cheapens the debate that we have here when you have that kind of distortion.

The question was asked, how did the President of Iran get to be so strong? But one of the reasons he is so strong is because our friends on the other side of the aisle have not participated in assisting us on an energy agenda that will make it so we have American energy for Americans. There is some truth for you. The folks who continue to throw stones on the other side of the aisle constantly, and we will talk about this this evening, make it so that they put roadblocks in the way of trying to increase American independence in the area of energy.

So, Madam Speaker, in fact, I would appreciate some help from the other side of the aisle for some United Nations reform. We have had a bill on the floor of the House here to reform the United Nations, to reform the United States' participation in the United Nations.

And goodness knows we can't get any support from our good friends on the other side of the aisle, but they are ready, willing, and able to come down to the House floor and criticize the United States for their participation in the United Nations. Are they willing to help us solve the problem? Madam Speaker, I haven't seen that.

I also heard my friend from Maryland this evening talk about the contractors in Iraq. And he used as the font of all wisdom and knowledge about the contractors in Iraq who were hired. Madam Speaker, did you hear who he used as the resource for all of that? You know, when we were growing up we would have to cite our resources in our papers for school and for university, and it had to be something reliable. Did you hear who we used, Madam Speaker? The Washington Post. Now there is a reliable source for you.

But when he brought that information, he didn't bring it by way of enlightenment; he brought it by way of criticism, by way of division, by way of tearing down those individuals who are working just as hard as they can to make certain that Iraq is restored and has an opportunity to become a democratic and sovereign nation on its own. Division, division, distortion, demagoguery, misinformation, disinformation. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Maryland to apologize to the Members, to the United States citizens who are working as hard as they can in Iraq as independent contractors, risking their lives just like the military. Some of them have actually been murdered by our enemies in Iraq. So I would hope that the gentleman would reconsider what he said.

Don't you get tired of it, Madam Speaker, that kind of distortion of the fact, that kind of division? I certainly do, and I know my constituents do at home. They get tired of the fighting, of the backbiting. They get tired of three or four individuals who can stand up here for an hour on the floor of the House and not offer one single, one single positive solution to the challenges that confront us as a Nation. And the challenges are big; these are big challenges. They are not Republican challenges, they are not Democrat challenges, they are American challenges.

And so, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to come and have the opportunity at the pleasure of the leadership to be able to come and talk a little bit about some positive things about America, some positive things that we have done, but also to provide some truth. Remember Senator Moynihan's comment, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts. So we would like to bring some facts tonight about a couple different areas, primarily national security because it has been talked about just recently, and the issue of the economy, the economic perspective in our Nation. And I think it is extremely important that when we discuss this, that again we remember that truth and facts are important. And so I am going to present some information here that I hope that Members of the House are listening to. I hope that they are listening to, and, frankly, I hope that the American people are listening, because there is some information that I think that they will be extremely, extremely interested in, especially when we talk about votes as it relates to issues on the floor of the House.

So the Official Truth Squad is pleased to be able to come and talk a little bit about national security and about the economy.

Now, there is certainly no more important function of the Federal Government than the security of the American people. And Republicans, as everyone knows, have always been committed to national security. Our Nation's defense, our Homeland Security and border control and the global war on terror are not just priorities for this administration, but they are indeed priorities for all House Republicans. And if there were ever any question in anyone's mind about whether or not we are a Nation that remains at risk because of enemies around the world, then all one has to do is look to a very recent activity in England where the United States, along with our good friends in Great Britain and friends in Pakistan, were able to thwart a plan by our enemies, by our enemies who have sworn to make certain they end our way of life. We were able to thwart a plan to bring down many, many airliners that would kill thousands, thousands of innocent civilians.

So it is clear that the global war on terror is indeed a huge priority. It is a priority for us. I would hope that it would be a priority for all Members of the House. However, the Democrats continue to try to obstruct our security plans, and they have been essentially a party of ``no,'' with no alternative plans to meet our security needs. And I would ask, Madam Speaker, folks to remember just the hour that we have just heard by our good friends on the other side of the aisle, and try to recollect one single solution that was offered. Madam Speaker, I suspect that you, like I, can't remember it, because in fact there were no solutions that were offered.

For instance, Democrats have called time and time again for the redeployment of our troops. And there was a commentator or an interviewer on television recently who asked a member of the Democrat Caucus, where do you want them redeployed to? And he couldn't come up with an answer. But occasionally they will come up with an answer, and oftentimes they will say, well, they ought to be able to redeploy to Okinawa. Well, now there is a thought, Madam Speaker, redeploy the troops from Iraq to Okinawa. If you take a look at the globe, the port of Newport News and Norfolk is closer to Iraq than Okinawa. So redeployment of troops to Okinawa makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Now, the other side of the aisle, the Democrats are certainly good at saying no, but they are not good at laying forth alternative plans. What they don't seem to understand is the magnitude of the threat of terrorism or indeed what is at stake. Their leader has been quoted as saying, ``We don't even have a party position on the war.'' This is certainly evidenced by their inability to present a plan for combating terrorism in this remarkably difficult and changed post-9/11 world.

There is one Democrat leader who has in fact said that the global war on

terror isn't really all that relevant. Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, we have the remarkable activities in England just last month, the knowledge and understanding that our enemy is making plans day in and day out to try to kill innocent civilians across all free nations, to try to do their best to make certain that we end our way of life, that they end our way of life, and we have a Democrat leader in this House who says that the global war on terror isn't really all that relevant. Well, with a stance like that, our leader says, with a stance like that, it is easy to see why Capitol Hill Democrats have no record of accomplishment on national security issues and lack a coherent agenda on the biggest challenge of the day.

Just this month, House Republicans will continue to focus our floor action on important security issues. We will be authorizing the President's Terror Surveillance Program, which is designed to identify and disrupt terror cells planning to attack against the United States. This is the kind of program that was utilized to assist in the activities that foiled the plot in England.

Now, when I go home, Madam Speaker, I don't know about you, but when I go home and I talk to my constituents and they say, what on Earth are you all arguing about? How can it be that anybody in this Nation believes that we as a Nation don't have the responsibility, in fact don't have the absolute imperative to make certain that we are listening and hearing and determining what our enemies are saying if they are outside the United States? I have significant concern on privacy issues when you are talking about communication between a United States citizen in the United States and another United States citizen in the United States. That is a different issue, Madam Speaker. And when individuals confuse and confound those two, they do a disservice to every single American.

The issue is not whether or not that kind of communication is protected. The issue is, in fact, whether or not we, as elected representatives of constituents all across this Nation, will respond to what they believe, our constituents believe, Americans all across this Nation, is an imperative for our government to do, and that is to have a terrorism surveillance program that lets us know what the bad guys are going to do before they do it. Clearly that is the most effective means of combating the war on terror, is to make certain we know what our enemy is going to do before they do it and then stop them before they do it.

In the House this month, we will be authorizing military tribunals for suspected terrorists. These are noncitizens fighting under any flag. These are terrorists. They have proclaimed to kill you and me and end our way of life as a Nation. They are not fighting for a nation. They have never signed the Geneva Accords themselves. These are evil people who must be dealt with by different rules. This is unlike any war the world has ever seen. That is not to say that they ought to be treated inhumanely, but they need to be treated with different rules in order for us to gain the kind of information that we need, in addition to being able to hold these people who are interested in doing us great, great harm, great harm.

This month the House Republicans have passed a resolution to recognize the 5-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As I go through these, I think it is important for Members of the House as well as Americans all across the Nation to appreciate as these votes come up, watch where the votes go, watch who is supporting these commonsense protections for the American people.

A resolution recognizing the 5-year anniversary of the 9/11 attack, we even had some Members on the other side of the aisle vote against that. They objected strenuously that it came to the floor of the House for a vote.

Strengthening border security. We had a debate on building a fence along the southern border to make sure that our Nation is secure. This week we will deal with some issues that will provide for allowing local law enforcement individuals, both State and local, the right and privilege to detain and retain illegals who come under their jurisdiction until the Federal Government comes and is able to deport them. Right now that is not the case. We will have a bill on the floor that will once and for all end the catch-and-release program that has been operating at the border.

I ask the American people to watch who is voting on these issues. There is no reason on Earth that we ought to apprehend an individual coming across our border illegally and then give him a piece of paper and say, you have to come back in 90 days and we will try you. They just blend into society.

A catch-and-release program does not work. There are over 400,000 individuals who have already in this Nation gone through the process. They were here illegally, they are found to be guilty of another crime and been ordered deported, and yet they are told to come back and report for their deportation date. And the catch-and-release program does not make any sense.

We will have on the floor this week a bill to provide for a catch- and-return policy, which means if they are apprehended coming into our Nation illegally, they are returned to their country of origin.

There was the discovery once again of another tunnel between San Diego or the San Diego area and Mexico. Apparently it was some 400 feet long, and it was used to smuggle drugs and contraband and illegals into the United States. That was just discovered. We will have a bill on the floor to strengthen the laws as it relates to the building of tunnels for the purpose of bringing drugs and smuggling aliens in.

We will have on the floor funding and protecting American troops, the defense authorization conference report, and defense and military quality of life appropriations conference reports, and then homeland security conference reports which will provide that funding for border security and for the barriers that I talked about.

And it is extremely important to watch who is voting for these things and who is opposing them. Oftentimes what we find is that individuals will say one thing at home, and then they come to Washington, and there is something in the air here that makes them do something different. We respectfully request that folks watch and see who is voting for what.

On the issue of border security, maintaining the integrity of our borders is an economic and a security concern. Americans are worried about the vulnerabilities at our borders, and House Republicans have passed several pieces of legislation to strengthen our borders, put more technology and personnel at the borders, and develop systems to ascertain who crosses the border and for what purposes. We need to know who is coming in to our Nation.

The Republican plan for border security focuses on providing more Border Patrol agents, strengthening security through additional fencing and infrastructure, stricter enforcement, and enhancing State and local law enforcement authority. These are the foundations that must be set before we can begin the next step of immigration reforms. It is imperative, the American people are demanding, that we put our priorities first on controlling the border, making certain we know who is coming into our Nation.

It ought not surprise anybody to get a little truth now, and that is that the Democrats have not supported the efforts to secure our borders. We passed the REAL ID Act, the act that provide for an appropriate form of identification for people traveling on an airplane. This would go a long way in identifying individuals here illegally, and 152 Democrats voted ``no,'' including the top two members of their leadership. They voted against the REAL ID Act.

We passed the Border Protection Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act, which was the bill that has been proclaimed by those individuals who truly know and appreciate what it is going to take to control and secure our border. They believe it is the most appropriate bill that has come through Congress, certainly more appropriate than the version that came out of the Senate. But on that bill, 164 Democrats oppose that bill, including the top two in their leadership.

So folks may say one thing at home, and when they come to Washington, they oftentimes do something completely different.

On our Nation's defense, people who fight for our freedom must be fully supported. The House Armed Services Committee and our Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and Military Quality of Life have concentrated their efforts on making certain that we meet those needs, as well as helping transform the Department of Defense to meet the threats for the next century.

In the area of intelligence reform, this is where I talked about making certain that we know what the bad guys are going to do it before they do it. Republicans have worked with the administration and intelligence agencies to help transform our intelligence-gathering capabilities and analyzing system. Rather than accept that we need to focus our efforts on this kind of reform, Democrats instead want to focus on just attacking the administration. You hear it over and over again.

Madam Speaker, it is like a broken record. They have tried to discredit the terrorist surveillance program that we talked about and other policies which have helped protect our Nation from further attack. It is not a mistake or just a happenstance that we as a Nation have not been attacked since 9/11. There are incredible individuals working day and night to make certain that we are safe as a Nation.

The 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act that was proposed in 2004, these are the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that you hear people talking about on the other side of the aisle all the time and that we should implement them. We had the bill that implemented a significant portion of those, and what happened? A majority, 125 Democrats, including their leader, voting to oppose it, voted ``no'' to implement significant recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

So, Madam Speaker, remember, you are entitled to your own opinions, but are not entitled to your own facts.

The global war on terrorism is truly the most important activity, most important war of our generation, and it is a war like no other, as we have talked about. It is fought on many different levels: military, intelligence, economic, technology, cyberworld, Internet, all corners of the Earth.

Again, this is not a war that we sought. We didn't go out looking for this. It has been brought to our shores and brought to us, and there are terrorists out there who truly want to kill us, and they say that explicitly.

If you don't believe me, you just ought to listen to them. They are interested in murdering and killing innocent civilians and ending our way of life. If we do not take their words seriously and take them at their word, we do so at our peril. It is the simple and horrible truth, Madam Speaker. We must face this fact and employ all efforts, all efforts, to thwart their many attempts.

Oftentimes the Democrats will talk a good game on protecting the homeland; but when push come to shove, they certainly demonstrate that they don't understand the real issues that affect our homeland and our national security. Again, they have been the loud party of ``no,'' with no alternative plans to meet our security needs. And although we still cannot fully understand why the terrorists hate our way of life so much, we do understand this much: that we are in a real war.

Almost 5 years after the attacks on 9/11, Islamic extremist groups, jihadists, continue to represent the most immediate threat to the United States and to our allies and to our interests abroad. And at the urging of Osama bin Laden, every American man, woman, and child has become a legitimate target in their jihad. And, again, this is their words. It is not our conjecture. It is not our opinion. It is truth. It is fact.

Now, we are blessed with an absolutely outstanding military that has taken the battle to the enemy, and it is extremely important that we fight these battles at their point of origin. We have many good and faithful allies all around the globe, and we have taken that fight forward, supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan in rooting out the enemy before he can strike again. And we are cooperating with friendly forces from the Philippines to Africa and from the Middle East to South America. And we are united. We are united against this threat.

But the United States, we remain a Nation at war. We are not safe simply because we have not seen an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. We are safer today because of the professionals of the worldwide network of intelligence and military and law enforcement officials who continue to pressure and strike al Qaeda and its followers. And we must continue the pressure on these radical organizations until victory for all freedom-loving people of the world is assured. September 11, 2001, showed us the danger of Islamic jihadism, and it also taught us that deficiencies in our own system made it possible for terrorists to operate right under our noses.

Our most important duty, as Members of Congress, is to protect our Nation from ever experiencing that lesson again. And for that reason, we must, we must continue to focus on improving our national security, our homeland security, and our intelligence systems.

But, again, the fact of the matter is the Democrats do not seem to understand that the threat of terrorism exists or even what is at stake. Remember what their leader said, they do not even have a party position on the war and an individual in their leadership said they didn't think the global war on terror was really all that relevant.

Recently, just a couple weeks ago, their leader, in a press conference, made a stunning and contradictory assessment that capturing Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for numerous attacks against the United States, including those of 9/11, would ``not make America any safer.'' ``Even if he's caught tomorrow, she said, ``I don't think that makes us any safer.''

Now, with a stance like that, it is easy to see why Capitol Hill Democrats have no record of accomplishment on national security or their issues and that they lack a coherent agenda on the biggest challenge of the day for this Congress and, yes, this Nation.

As I mentioned, they have called for implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Over and over they have called, but repeatedly Capitol Hill Democrats have opposed legislation implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission meant to strengthen America's national security and to prevent further attacks.

The 9/11 Commission said: ``The government has made significant strides in using terrorism financing as an intelligence tool.'' So what happened on House Resolution 895, the legislation supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs that track terrorists and condemn with proper congressional oversight the publication of any classified information that could potentially impair the fight against terrorism, that is, implementing one of the 9/11 Commission recommendations? What happened? 174 Democrats voted ``no.'' 174 voted ``no.''

They call for the immediate implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. One of the 9/11 Commission recommendations was: ``The READ ID Act has established statute standards for State-issued IDs acceptable for Federal purposes, though States' compliance needs to be closely monitored.'' What happened with that bill that the 9/11 Commission said was a wise idea and ought to be adopted? 152 of our friends on the other side of the aisle voted ``no.'' 152.

They talk about immediately implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. A quote from the 9/11 Commission: ``The House and Senate have taken positive steps, but Secretary Chertoff and his team still report to too many bosses. The House and Senate Homeland Security Committees should have exclusive jurisdiction over all counterterrorism functions of the Department of Homeland Security.'' That is a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, a recommendation that our good friends say ought to be immediately implemented. So when the proposal comes up to do just that, a majority, 120 of them, vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

So in the area of national security, I think it is clear. There is a party, there are leaders in this Congress on the Republican side of the aisle who understand the threat, understand the gravity of the situation, understand and appreciate that we have a real enemy, understand and appreciate that that real

enemy is interested in causing significant harm to our Nation and in murdering innocent civilians, and we are taking actions day in and day out, including this week, to make certain that we are more safe and more secure as a Nation.

So I challenge and call on my friends on the other side of the aisle to join us. Don't just talk about it. Don't just come down here and paint doom and gloom. There are people here who are working hard. Remember what Churchill said? ``Criticism is easy. Achievement is difficult.'' ``Achievement is difficult.'' So join us. You might find that being part of the solution instead of just railing against the individuals who are in positions of leadership now is actually beneficial, that your constituents actually appreciate the work that you are doing in a bipartisan manner. Boy, wouldn't that be wonderful? We certainly would welcome you to participate.

Madam Speaker, I talked about the concern that the Official Truth Squad has about all of the disinformation and the misinformation that goes on, and I was looking a little over a year ago for a quote. I am a fan of quotes. I enjoy quotes, and I think that oftentimes individuals in history have given us great perspective on our Nation and great perspective on our principles and the roots of our Nation. And the ``politics of division'' really irritates me, and I think it does a disservice to our Nation because we are so strong and we are united as a Nation.

But the other side of the aisle seems intent on tearing down, on dividing. You have heard some of it this evening. The extending tax cuts for millionaires you heard tonight and all sorts of remarkable divisive statements. The comment about the contractors in Iraq was a divisive statement, where we have hardworking American citizens who are putting their lives at risk and they get criticized in order for some divisive purpose, to try to gain some political points. Madam Speaker, it is just disheartening to hear that kind of conversation, and it does a disservice to our Nation.

When I attempted to find a quote that would crystallize that emotion, I came across this one, the Reverend William Boetcker, who was a leader and a public speaker in the late 19th and early 20th century. He was trying to crystallize the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln in his social philosophy, and it is one of my favorite quotes. He said: ``You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot encourage the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.''

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could do for themselves.

And so, Madam Speaker, I turn now to addressing the issue of vision and addressing the issue of the economy. House Republicans have realized, certainly do realize the importance of developing and having a vision to focus our efforts and to ensure that we address what is important for the American people. And we came together and highlighted a vision earlier this year that would address this new American century. And we came up with the following vision. We will promote dignity and future of every individual. It is important to talk about the individual. Madam Speaker, often times you hear the folks on the other side of the aisle talk about groups of folks. And again they like to separate people into groups so that they can divide and conquer.

But it is the individual, it is the individual who makes things great. So we will promote the dignity and the future of every individual by building a free society, under a limited, accountable government that protects our liberty, our security, and our prosperity for a brighter American dream.

Now, the Democrats had no such vision. Again, they are the ``party of no,'' they have got no plan to lead the Nation. That is a dangerous way to try to take over the majority of the House of Representatives. And it is clear. We heard it again tonight. Their actions are guided by politics and discrediting the administration over and over again rather than focusing on a positive agenda for the American people.

Again that is the kind of information and the kind of requests that I get at home when I talk to my constituents about a passion for a positive agenda for America. Because, we are a great, great Nation. And we work so well together when we work unified. And that is what folks at home tell me that they would desire, that we move together forward in unity.

Now, I want to talk a little bit about our economy. And I think it is important to appreciate that our economy today is truly remarkably strong. And the numbers prove that. Our Nation has bounced back from the blow that the economy took following the attacks of 9/11. Our unemployment is low. Home ownership across all sectors of our society is the highest it has ever been.

And recently, as I know in your home state, Madam Speaker, the gas prices are falling. Now, we got a lot of criticism for the gas prices going up, so we ought to take a fair amount of credit for them coming down. The most recent economic numbers are truly remarkable.

Although this chart is a little old, the trends are absolutely accurate and correct. Unemployment. The Employment gains continue. 128,000 new payroll jobs were created in August, A total of 5.7 million new jobs since August of 2003.

The unemployment rate is at a point, at a level of 4.7 percent, 4.7 percent. I know that there are some economist amongst our midst who understand and appreciate that full employment is basically 5 percent, used to be 6 percent a number of decades ago, but they revised it downward to 5 percent being full employment. That means that basically folks who are interested having a job have a job.

GDP growth for the second quarter was revised up to 2.9 from an earlier estimate of 2.5 percent. Gasoline prices have fallen recently with the average regular unleaded gasoline falling to below $2.70 a gallon. I know in my area it is $2.22 cents when I drove to the airport this moving to come here.

Oil apparently today was down to less than $62 a barrel, which is a significant move downward. And, Madam Speaker, this is due, these numbers are due to the policies put in place by this Republican Congress and our effort to spur the economy and lay the foundation for the economy of the next century.

Now, elections are coming up. I know that is a surprise to some. But if you heard the kind of comments made earlier on the floor this evening you can tell that elections are coming up. But the American people understand that elections are about choices, and they are about the future. And there is a clear choice between Republicans who are working to enact serious reforms that will grow our economy, and reduce the deficit, and Capitol Hill Democrats who are interested in spending more of America's taxpayer dollars on wasteful Government programs as they see fit.

Now, I want to point out two things on this and the next poster. This poster here has the years down on the lower portion here, 2000-2006. And it has, this blue line here is the number of new jobs created, the number of new jobs created. And since August of 2003, this has 5.3, it is actually 5.7 million new jobs created in that period of time.

There is a vertical dotted green line here. And that vertical dotted green line marks the point where the tax decreases, the appropriate and fair tax decreases for the American people were enacted by this administration and by this Congress. And since that point, what you have seen, again, here is jobs growth going down. Tax decreases put into place, and jobs go up.

These red bars are business investment in these quarters. See business investment down, which means a slower economy, not as many jobs, not as much economic activity or growth. What happens when appropriate, fair tax decreases are put in place? The economy flourishes. No mistake about it. It occurs every time that significant tax reduction is put in place, has been put in place over the last 50 years in our Nation.

President Kennedy knew it. It occurred when he instituted appropriate tax decreases. President Reagan knew it. It occurred when he instituted tax decreases, and occurred with president George W. Bush with the appropriate tax decreases of 2003.

Now, I think it is important to appreciate that the other side truly has no plan for the economy. In fact they have not proposed any plans to address the mandatory programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, those things that are on automatic pilot that now comprise about 54 percent of the budget, and unless they are addressed in relatively short order they will cause a significantly greater drain on the economy, decrease the economic growth and activity that we have seen.

The other side is literally blind and has not proposed any proposals to improve or to reform those spending programs. In fact, what they have done is to propose in the last fiscal year 2006 budget, these were their proposals, these were the things that they actually did write down and bring to committees and bring to the floor of the House, new spending to the tune of $21.5 billion, and new taxes, new taxes to the tune of $54 billion with again no savings, no savings in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, those items that if nothing is doing to those three items by 2030, they will consume the entire budget, the entire budget.

So it is not something that you can just say, well, do not worry about it, we do not have to do anything to those items because they will take care of themselves.

Over the past 4 years, if the Democrats had been in control, they talk about their desire to take control of the House and to lead, well, what would have happened if they would have been in control for the last 4 years and had their proposals put in place?

If they had been in control, discretionary spending would have increased by over $106 billion. Amazingly, although they talk a good game, they have voted consistently against any significant budget reform efforts.

The Deficit Reduction Act, that bill that was passed earlier this bill that saved approximately $40 billion, $40 billion saved, the Democrats unanimously, unanimously voted against that bill, the Deficit Reduction Act.

In fact, one of their leaders was heard to say something like, we are not going to give them a single vote on this, and said it with great pride. Again, that is that politics of division, that desire to not be productive, to not be positive about solutions as they come forward here in the Congress.

What about the line item veto? When I go home, I hear folks talk about budgetary improvements we could make here in Washington. Many of them ask about the line item veto, why can't we allow the administration, any administration, to pick those items in the budget and say no, we ought not be spending money on that specific item. Good idea. I have supported it. The vast majority of my colleagues on the Republican side have supported it.

What happened when the bill came here to the floor for a vote? Well, Madam Speaker, the vote occurred earlier this year, rollcall vote 317, and the number of individuals on their side of the aisle supporting it, 35. The vast majority, 156, voting no.

That is the line item veto. That is one of those proposals that you hear them talk about all the time, wanting to make certain that the line item veto is passed. But when given the opportunity, when given the opportunity to stand up and say yes, that is exactly what we want to do, what do they say? No. ``No, we don't believe that we ought to have that kind of reform,'' even though that is what they say when they go home.

Earmark reform. What about earmark reform? We had the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act. These are the special projects put into bills. We have had a couple of votes on this.

The first one that we had earlier, H.R. 4975, 192 Democrats vote no, including their top two members of their leadership.

Recently all it was was a sunshine bill. It said that if you are going to put a special project into the budget, that you ought to put your name beside it. I had a bill that I called ``sunshine for earmarks.'' It said that if you are going to have a special project in an appropriations bill, that you ought to have to put your name beside it so that your constituents know you put it in there and they can look at it and say yes, this is what we want our Member of Congress to do, or no, we don't think that is something that he or she ought to be doing, so the colleagues here, Members' colleagues in the House, can know where these kinds of requests are coming from. It is important. It is important to have that kind of sunshine.

It is a simple, simple proposal. It is important for the press to know so that when they are providing their oversight of the fourth estate, that in fact they know who has put these items in.

So what kind of vote did we get? Again, this is a proposal that they talk about all the time. ``If we could just have some earmark reform.'' So we bring it to the floor, call for a vote, it passes because the vast majority of colleagues on my side of the aisle, our side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle supported it. But what did those folks on the other side do? 147 of them, the vast majority voted no, including 15 ranking members. These are Members who are the most senior members on the committees in the United States House of Representatives. These are the individuals, if the other side were to by some chance take over and gain the majority, these are the individuals who would be chairmen. They would be chairs of the committees.

And what do they say with their vote, the vast majority? They say no, we don't want earmark reform. We don't want special project reform. We may say we do, but we really don't. We don't believe it in so much that when given the opportunity to vote for it, they vote no. And the leadership, what did the leadership do? Voted no. That is what they did on the other side of the aisle.

So, Madam Speaker, every single Member, every single individual is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts, and these are the facts about who is truly interested in budgetary reform and earmark reform.

To make matters worse, they are more than eager to raise your taxes. You hear the code words, and the code words recently have become ``shared sacrifice.'' Have you heard that, Madam Speaker, ``shared sacrifice?''

What that means is raising your taxes, because they believe that they know how to spend your money better than you. That is one of the principles that they have about how they plan to grow the government, how they plan to cover all these special projects and programs that they wish to have adopted. That would have not only a horrible impact on the economy, but it would also give them even more revenue, increased revenue in the government to spend.

Madam Speaker, when I hear the other side talk, if you just listen to them, you get so doggone depressed. But I am optimistic about the future of this Nation. I am optimistic about this economy.

The United States has the number one economy in the world, and in order to assure that vibrant economy in the 21st century, we in the House have focused on a comprehensive set of policies and incentives that will build on a solid economic foundation.

This won't be accomplished by Federal funds though, because Federal funds don't solve that kind of challenge. That is done by private capital. The private sector, not government bureaucrats, know how money should be spent, what resources are needed and what type of training workers will require. Unfortunately, unfortunately, there are way too many government roadblocks that stand in the way of business development and that deter investment, both here and abroad.

There are steps that we can take and we will take to restore our Nation's competitiveness and ensure that America remains the land of opportunity. We are not the status quo party. The Republicans are not the status quo party. We are the party of change, we are the party of vision, we are the party of entrepreneurship, we are the party of individual responsibility, we are the party of success.

So we will work to address health care security, termination of bureaucratic red tape, lifelong learning, trade fairness and opportunity, tax relief and

simplification, energy self-sufficiency and security, innovation and investment, and ending lawsuit abuse and litigation management.

I tell you, Madam Speaker, that is an agenda that the American people can be proud of. It is an agenda that the American people can embrace with enthusiasm, with optimism, with passion, not with a dour look on your face and say ``woe is me, isn't the world awful.''

These are the exciting kind of proposals. These are exciting proposals that we will put forward before the House as we continue our leadership, our strong leadership, to bring about increasing American competitiveness.

For 3 years, House Republicans have promoted the House economic competitiveness agenda. This year alone we have passed over 39 pieces of legislation that will help make America more competitive. We have real solutions. Republicans offer real solutions. We invite our colleagues to join us in moving America forward and providing an opportunity for the United States businesses and working families.

But instead, they have no plan, and instead of working with us at the committee level or on the House floor, the Democrats have tried to undermine the economic competitiveness agenda over and over and over again.

Again, their so-called innovative agenda is not innovative. It is a call for increased government spending, presumably fueled by increased taxes. In response to our economic agenda, at so many different points they have been nothing but obstructionists over and over again.

For example, college access for all. They say they are for expanding access to college, yet they voted against the College Access and Opportunity Act, 181 of them, including the top two leaders in their party, 181 of them voted against the College Access and Opportunity Act.

Energy independence, Democrats say they want to end our dependence on foreign oil, and yet they try to obstruct every single plan to access America's own oil and natural gas reserves, such as tapping into ANWR and the OCS.

The Energy Policy Act, 183 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no. Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act, 176 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no. And the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, 156 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no.

Affordable health care, a difficult challenge for so many large and small businesses around our Nation, Democrats say they want to help employers provide health insurance to their employees. But they vote against every single measure to do so. The HEALTH Act, 185 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no. Small Business Health Fairness Act, 165 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no. And recently, the Health Information Technology Promotion Act, something that would truly streamline health care for our Nation, 139 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no. So, Madam Speaker, it truly is a remarkable contrast between the two parties.

I want to put up one more chart, because when you think about what would happen if the other side were in fact to be in the majority, I get questions at home, what would they do? What would they do?

Again, elections are about choices and they are about the future, and to determine what they would do, all you have to do is look at the legislation that they have proposed, the legislation they proposed. I presume that is what they would do, don't you, Madam Speaker?

The top two bills that they have proposed, H. Res. 635 and H. Res. 636, the first step in impeaching President Bush resolution and the second step in impeaching President Bush resolution.

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that the American people are interested in leadership in this House of Representatives that has as its number one priority the impeachment of the President of the United States. That is not what the American people are interested in.

What else are they interested in? H.R. 4683, the Federal Health Care System Government-Run Health Care Act. House Democrats want to create a Federal health care system without choices, which would combine the efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the compassion of the IRS, and they would tax Americans to get to it. They would amend the Social Security Act, the bill would, to impose on the income of every individual a tax equal to 1.7 percent of wages received, and on every employer an excise tax of 7 percent of the wages paid to each employee, and on the self-employment income of every individual a tax equal to the applicable percentage of the self-employment income for such taxable year. Who cosponsors that? Ranking Democrats, remember, the individuals who would be chairmen of the committees, ranking Democrats and senior members of the Democrat Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I do not think that is what Americans are bargaining for. That is not what I hear my constituents say they want when I go home and talk to them which is every single week. They are not interested in the Federal Government running health care.

H.R. 1018, it is called the Permanent Welfare Housing Act. I call it the welfare reform repeal Act. Public housing, this bill would remove provisions that residents of public housing are required to participate in 8 hours per month of either community service or economic self- sufficiency activities in order to retain their public housing. Who are the sponsors? The ranking Democrats, remember folks who would be chairmen of these committees, and multiple, multiple senior Democrat Members.

Madam Speaker, one of the most incredible and productive and positive pieces of legislation that has passed through this Congress in the past 12 years has been welfare reform. It has put literally millions of Americans back to work, to be productive citizens, to have pride in what they are doing, to believe that they have some worth and they have some input into the productivity of this Nation. What is it that the other side wants to do? Well, they want to repeal portions of it that would provide that kind of sense of accomplishment and sense of participation.

So, Madam Speaker, Republicans understand that it is the American people who built this Nation, American people who built this economy and made this the land of opportunity. Washington's job as the people's representative is to provide national and economic security and to give each individual the freedom and the protection to pursue their American dream.

The imagination and hard work of the American people have built this wonderful and beautiful Nation, and they have made it prosperous. Our task as Members of the United States Congress is to ensure that this remains true for the next century.

Once again, the other side relies on the vague promises and big government programs to solve every perceived problem in the United States. Government is not the answer, and this philosophy, which is truly left over from previous bureaucratic administrations of the 1960s and 1970s, has only slowed down progress in our Nation every single time it has been instituted.

Madam Speaker, we live in a glorious Nation. It is a wondrous Nation, a Nation that is still seen by men and women around the world as a beacon of liberty and repository of hope. I am incredibly proud to serve in the United States House of Representatives and to have the opportunity to share this positive perspective and this positive vision with my colleagues and with the Nation as we have done tonight.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 20, 2006, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman and the leadership for their continued astute work on this most important matter.

On December 16 of last year, the House responsibly debated and passed H.R. 4437. Part of that bill was an amendment that I authored that is now

incorporated into section 2 of this bill. It is the accountability portion. It is the oversight portion. And accountability is truly the key.

We are in this position today because of benign neglect from Washington. In 1986, another bill was passed that promised border security. That was not done, and the American people lost trust in Washington on this issue.

In order to restore that trust, we must first gain operational control. Operational control of the border is the imperative, and section 2 is what accomplishes that. It will ensure that the American people will know with certainty that that task has been accomplished.

My friends on the other side of the aisle say a fence is not the only answer, and this bill recognizes that. Look at section 2; it states that Homeland Security shall take all actions necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States, including systematic surveillance of the international land and maritime borders and physical infrastructure.

This is not just a fence bill, Mr. Speaker. It is also not just a Republican issue, it is not a Democrat issue; it is an American issue. I encourage and challenge my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important measure that all of our constituents demand.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly fitting and proper that we pause to recognize the fifth anniversary of the tragic and cowardly acts of 9/ 11, and it is important for a number of reasons. It is important for reasons of memory and of gratitude and of resolve.

For we must remember and celebrate the lives of those unmercifully taken from us on 9/11. Their deaths must always bring focus to the challenge and the enemy that our Nation faces. This is a real war. Not recognizing that fact presents grave peril to our Nation. Yes, we must remember.

We must also be forever grateful to those who ran toward danger to help those in need, to be forever grateful to the heroes of Flight 93 whose collective action resulted in the first victory in what is truly the war for the free world, and to be forever grateful to our fellow citizens, men and women in our military, first responders, intelligence communities and communities large and small across this Nation, who courageously labor to keep us safe and free.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must resolve to recognize the gravity of the challenge and the enemy that we face, and with unity as a Nation, continually gather the will, the strength and the courage to defeat our enemy at every single turn. This is not a war we desired. However, it is a war in which we must prevail.

May we always remember, may we always give thanks, and may we always be resolved so that generations of Americans yet born may know the opportunity, the responsibility, the freedom and the liberty that we so cherish.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we came together to remember the day that will define our generation. September 11 was a day that forever changed the way we look at the world.

We learned about the amazing strength and character of the American people. During the events of that day, we saw astonishing courage and the very measure of the American spirit that our enemy had sought to destroy. We also learned that day there was a great evil out in the world that

wished to see our collapse. Their intent was not only to kill thousands of innocent civilians, but also to strike fear in the hearts of all Americans. These ruthless murderers thought they could break us, but they underestimated the will of the American people.

The morning that war was brought to our soil, we stood up as one proud Nation and declared that we will not allow those that use tools of terror and death to change who we are as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years later we remain steadfastly committed to our battle against an enemy who wishes to use terror to destroy democracy and freedom.

May God continue to richly bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, is it not time that we in Congress take real steps forward to increase the number of Americans with health insurance? The latest Census Bureau report shows us that there are over 46 million Americans without health insurance coverage. To resolve this problem and relieve the burden this places on our health care system, we need an innovative and new approach.

The bipartisan Health Partnership Through Creative Federalism Act, H.R. 5864, offers that inventive path. Creative Federalism provides for innovation in health care through State initiatives that expand health care coverage. It empowers States and other regions to tailor health programs to their specific needs, thereby increasing access to health care all across this Nation.

Members from both sides of the aisle realize that to solve a problem of such significance, we need fresh thinking and new ideas. States should be encouraged to consider a variety of reforms, tax credits, pooling programs, health savings accounts or a combination of other options.

Mr. Speaker, the status quo is unacceptable. The Health Partnership Through Creative Federalism Act, H.R. 5864, can lead us to a new period of greater health coverage and more insured Americans, and Mr. Speaker, that is a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 875) congratulating Spelman College on the occasion of its 125th anniversary, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 875.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 875, which is a resolution to recognize the contributions of Spelman College on the occasion of its 125th anniversary. I sincerely want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend, Mr. Lewis, for introducing this resolution and for his continuing recognition of the important role Spelman College plays in educating young women from all over the world.

Spelman College, located in Atlanta, Georgia, was originally founded in 1881 by two women with the intent of serving as an all-female seminary school. The school has since expanded its mission and ranks now as one of the leading liberal arts institutions offering a full range of degrees.

Today, Spelman educates over 2,000 young women and brings students from across the United States and around the globe to our community of Atlanta. As a Historically Black College and University, Spelman is one of a diverse community of institutions. Historically, black colleges and universities

include 2- and 4-year institutions, both public and private, as well as single sex and coed.

To be designated a Historically Black College or University, an institution must have been established prior to 1964, with a primary mission of educating African Americans.

Mr. Speaker, these schools have a long, proud and well-established heritage. These institutions have been educating students of this Nation for over 100 years. And while comprising less than 3 percent of the country's 2- and 4-year institutions, they are responsible for producing a significant number of all bachelors, masters and professional degrees earned by African Americans.

Congress has repeatedly recognized the importance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Between 1995 and 2006, congressional funding for strengthening the Historical Black Colleges and Universities program rose from $109 million to $238 million, a 118 percent increase.

Furthermore, funding for the graduate programs increased from $19.6 million to $57.9 million over that same period of time, an increase of nearly 200 percent.

Historically, Spelman College has been named as a college with the ``best environment.'' Spelman works with its fellow colleges and universities to advance the goals of educating African American students as part of the largest consortium of historically black higher education institutions in the world.

It does this by sharing cross-registration with its partner institutions, which include Clark Atlanta University, the Interdenominational Theological Center, Morehouse College and the Morehouse School of Medicine.

Mr. Speaker, for this reason and many more, I urge my colleagues to honor the 125th anniversary of Spelman College and support H. Res. 875.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased also to join Mr. Davis and my good friends from Georgia, Mr. Scott, and the author, Mr. Lewis, in urging all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 875.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the leader and the chairman for their hard work on this. I rise in support of H.R. 4.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank both the chairman of the committee and Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee members.

As a physician, I know the importance of having appropriate information available in order to make quality health care decisions, and I am cautiously optimistic about the prospects in that portion of the bill.

My amendment addresses section 203, the area of the bill that seeks to upgrade the ICD codes.

ICD, or international classification of diseases, codes are diagnostic codes, series of letters and numbers that identify with some specificity the various diseases or conditions for which a patient is being treated.

ICD codes can be very useful in tracking various patients with similar conditions. They may be helpful in research that may aid in the future treatment of patients with the same disease.

ICD codes are diagnostic codes. They were intended to be used to identify as accurately as possible the diagnosis that a particular patient has.

ICD codes were not designed to be used for anything beyond documentation of a diagnosis.

However, they are being used, in combination with other codes, particularly CPT or billing codes, to evaluate various kinds of treatment and whether that treatment is appropriate or efficient or of quality.

There are many people who are providing health care for our citizens, who are taking care of our families, who have significant reservations regarding the use of those codes for purposes for which they were never designed.

It is possible that the use of these codes for other needs may, in fact, result in conclusions that are at best misleading, and worse, incorrect, thereby having the possible outcome of harming the treatment of future patients.

Consequently, my amendment calls for a report from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to Congress that would determine the applicability, usefulness, accuracy and completeness of the use of these codes.

It also asks for information on the capacity of the use of these codes to produce erroneous or misleading information.

Science relies on the accuracy of information in order to make correct judgments, determinations and decisions on how one should proceed. We here in Congress should do no less.

The consequences of our decisions can be significant, and it is imperative that we have accurate data upon which to make those decisions. The information that will result from this amendment will allow us to make those decisions with greater confidence in their benefit to our constituents.

I ask my colleagues for their support in assisting us in gaining greater insight into this important matter. I ask for their support on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate those comments, and I would agree, I think it is important that we move forward with a more specific ICD coding system. ICD 10 will do that, and hopefully it will be adopted in a timely fashion.

This report will be back prior to the installation of those new codes, and so I look forward to seeing the results of this report and hopefully making some recommendation at that time, and urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, everyone understands that we have a real challenge in health care with over 45 million Americans without adequate insurance coverage. And Washington is in a logjam with a national solution elusive.

Yesterday, we took a great step in meeting this challenge with the introduction by a bipartisan group of a significant measure to help cover the uninsured. As a physician, I understand that one-size-fits- all does not work in health care.

Our bipartisan working group respects greatly the principle of federalism. And our proposal will empower States to develop methods that best suit their unique populations.

H.R. 5864, the Health Partnership Through Creative Federalism Act holds real promise to increase the number of Americans with health insurance coverage. By empowering States to develop methods that best suit their unique needs, we are putting patients first which should be the foundation of any reform. This bold initiative takes this inherent knowledge into account and gives States the flexibility to find solutions to cover the uninsured.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides to sign on as a cosponsor and support this innovative solution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Financial Services have until 5 p.m. on Friday, August 11, 2006, to file a report on H.R. 5637, Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2006.

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to come back to the House floor this evening. On behalf of the Official Truth Squad, I want to thank the leadership and the conference for allowing me to host this hour.

The Official Truth Squad kind of grew out of frustration on the part of the freshmen class a little over a year ago. We felt that there were a lot of things that were said on this floor that, taken at face value, might be seen as being accurate, but, in fact, if you look at it a little closer, they were not the truth. And we felt that there was not a whole lot of time allotted to refuting the inaccuracies. Now, some of those inaccuracies, Mr. Speaker, you have just heard.

So we are going to spend a little time over the next hour to talk about accuracy. We are going to talk about truth because truth is so doggone important in trying to determine what public policy ought to be. If you are not dealing with real facts, if you are not dealing with truth, then you cannot get to the right answer, cannot get to the right solution. So it is my privilege to be able to join some of my colleagues this evening and to, Mr. Speaker, talk about the kinds of issues that are of importance to the American people.

And tonight we are going to talk a lot about the economy. But I want to start by sharing with you, Mr. Speaker, and with my colleagues kind of a saying that we have adopted, a quote that we have adopted, and it comes from Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He was a former United States Senator from the State of New York, and he had a wonderful quote that I am very fond of quoting and it is: ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.'' And there are a lot of opinions around here, Mr. Speaker, but as I mentioned, oftentimes the fact is far from the opinions that have been given. So it is my privilege to be joined tonight by some folks who will talk about some truth and some facts.

You have just heard some comments from some folks on the other side of the aisle, some good friends of mine on the Democrat side, who have decided to use some very specific instances and items that they would support, that they believe ought to be done if we are going to get our fiscal house in order.

We are going to talk about our fiscal house and how a lot of it is moving along pretty doggone well. But I want to mention a couple things because when given the opportunity to enact some of the programs, Mr. Speaker, that they have just within the last 15 minutes said were imperative to enact for our fiscal responsibility as a Nation, they do not come along. They do not help. And we need not just Republicans to be able to enact appropriate policies. We need Republicans and Democrats, everybody working on behalf of the American people.

One of the things that you have just heard about just a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, were PAYGO rules. PAYGO rules are rules that say you have got to be able to identify where the money is before you spend it. Sounds like a reasonable thing, Mr. Speaker. It is what you do in your home. It is what I do in my home. It is what all of us do in our homes if we are going to be fiscally responsible.

Well, not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, roll call vote 318, 2004; 318 is the roll call vote, Mr. Speaker. If you want to look it up, that is where you can find it. We had a proposal for PAYGO rules, and, again, that means that you have got to identify where the money is coming from before you spend it, for mandatory spending increases. And the vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, right here, Mr. Speaker, how many folks from the other side of the aisle that you just heard say how important this was, that this was important, how many folks voted for that? Roll call vote 318 in the year 2004: Not a single one. Not a single one voted for it.

Mr. Speaker, that is the truth. People can talk a good line. They can say that they need this thing or they need that thing or we need to do this or we need to do that. Oftentimes Members on the other side go home and say wonderful things about what they would do if they were given the opportunity. Well, here was an opportunity that was given to all Members of the House, and what happened is the fact that they did not support it. Not one of them supported it.

I am a great fan of a balanced budget amendment. I believe that a balanced budget is imperative for us to be fiscally responsible. In my first term in Congress here I have recognized, as most folks have, that the vast majority of the inertia here is all for spending, that there is very little discipline in the programs themselves, in the process that we have here, to restrain spending. So I believe that we ought to have a balanced budget amendment. We ought to have a balanced budget. We ought to only spend what we take in.

Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle, as you have just heard, Mr. Speaker, within the last 15 or 20 minutes, said, oh, yes, that is important. That is important too. In fact, it is so important, one of them said it was the most important proposal of their group. The most important proposal.

Well, I have got a couple votes to share with you, Mr. Speaker, because these are the truth. When you have to cast a vote for the record, you vote green or you vote red, that is recorded. That is recorded in the Congressional Record, and we keep track of those things because they are important. They are important because they are the truth and they demonstrate where folks stand.

A couple votes here to make a balanced budget resolution binding. That means that if we say we are going to balance the budget that you have got to follow that resolution. You have to balance the budget.

Well, there was a vote back in 1994, roll call vote 343, 1994. How many Democrats voted ``yes''? Twenty-four with 229 voting ``no.'' As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, 1994 was when the House changed. The Republicans took over the majority.

Well, we have continued to give them multiple opportunities to enact this kind of resolution. In fact, relatively recently, in 2004, roll call vote 311, how many folks on the other side of the aisle voted in favor of a balanced budget resolution on mandatory spending? Ten. Ten folks. You just heard, Mr. Speaker, that they said this was one of the most important things in their fiscal program; yet you cannot even get more than 10 folks to vote in favor of it.

How about this year, Mr. Speaker, what happened this year when we had a balanced budget substitute amendment to the 2007 budget. Now, this was an important vote. This was an extremely important vote because what this said is, yes, we believe that we ought to be absolutely fiscally responsible and we need to enact programs that will take us to a balanced budget as soon as possible.

Roll call vote 156, just this year, Mr. Speaker, 2006, how many Democrats voted ``yes''? How many folks from the group that said that this was the most important thing in their proposal? How many folks? Zero. Zero.

Mr. Speaker, that is the truth. That is the truth. As Senator Moynihan said: ``Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.'' And that is a fact, Mr. Speaker. That is a fact, and that is why the Official Truth Squad believes that it is important to talk about facts, to talk about the truth.

Tonight we are going to talk a fair amount about the economy and about economic principles and about where this Nation stands as it relates to the economy, and I am pleased to be joined by one of my good colleagues and fellow members of the freshmen class, Representative Thelma Drake from Virginia, who, as a small business person, understands the extreme importance of fiscal responsibility and really has been a stalwart in calling forward the kinds of policies that we need in this House and across this Nation in order to make certain that we gain that kind of fiscal responsibility that all Americans, not just Republicans, not just Democrats, but all Americans believe are so important.

And I yield to my good friend from Virginia.

I thank the gentlelady from Virginia. What wonderful points you made and shed light on the Official Truth Squad and facts that you brought before us, the issue about the tax cuts, the capital gains and dividend tax cuts now at 15 percent, which we have attempted to extend and worked so hard to extend. If one would believe everything that they hear from the other side, you would believe that every single person on the other side of the aisle supported that continued decrease. Not the case, as you well know. Not the case.

There is really wonderful and good news as it relates to the economy, the remarkable economic growth that you have cited, and we will go through some of that in just a little bit.

Taxpayer behavior, I appreciate your mentioning that, because people across this Nation know what goes on here in Washington as it relates to tax policy, and they tailor what they do in their personal lives based upon that. There is no doubt about it.

I would be happy to yield for a moment, if you would like.

Thank you so much. I appreciate your participation tonight in this edition of the Official Truth Squad, trying to bring some truth and fact and positive news to you, Mr. Speaker, and our colleagues.

I like charts, because I think that they oftentimes say so much more than I am able to put into words. We are going to go through some charts here.

This is one of my favorite charts, because it points out the time at which the tax relief occurred, the decrease in the capital gains and dividends and the consequence of that, the incredible economic growth, 12 quarters of 4 percent average growth since that point. We are going to talk about that. I am going to leave that up for a little bit because it is such wonderfully positive news that we need to be telling all of our colleagues about the importance of the changes in policy that indeed drive this kind of economic performance for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of serving on the Financial Services Committee, and we have an opportunity in that committee, as some other committees in Congress do, to hear from the Federal Reserve Chairman at least twice a year, sometimes more often, but at least twice a year.

Last week, the new Federal Reserve Chairman, Mr. Bernanke, came and spoke to our committee, and we had an opportunity to ask many questions. In response, he always gets the question, what is the state of the economy. How are we doing?

In response to one of those questions, I think he used the word ``robust.'' The economy was robust. And I know that doesn't jive with what some folks will have you say, but I think it is important to appreciate that the numbers, in fact, demonstrate that that is indeed the case.

I would like to share, Mr. Speaker, a couple of the comments that the Federal Reserve Chair made to our committee just last week. He said that since our February report, the report of the Federal Reserve, the U.S. economy has continued to expand; that real Gross Domestic Product is estimated to have risen at an annual rate of about 5.6 percent in the first quarter of 2006; that with respect to the labor market, more than 850,000 jobs were added in the first 6 months of this year; and that the last unemployment rate stood at 4.6 percent, which is a remarkable rate, Mr. Speaker. We will go over that along with some other statistics that I think are important to point out as it relates to the economy.

When he comes to Congress, he brings with him and presents to all Members of Congress what is called the Monetary Policy Report of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the group of individuals who set monetary policy for the United States. In so doing, they look at all sorts of different parameters that relate to our economic performance and whether or not they need to do something as it relates to the interest rate, to try to stem the potential tide of inflation.

I would like to share, Mr. Speaker, with Members of the House and you

some of the comments and statements made in this official Monetary Policy Report of the Federal Reserve, just some short portions.

Regarding monetary policy and the economic outlook, the report says, ``The U.S. economy continued to expand at a brisk rate.''

About economic projections for 2006 and 2007, ``In broad terms, the participants expect a sustained moderate expansion of real economic activity during the next year and a half.''

Mr. Speaker, that is good news, as far as I can tell. I don't know about others, what they think ought to occur, but I think any time that you have relatively reliable individuals predicting that real economic activity is going to expand over the next year and a half, that is good news.

Economic and financial developments in 2006, I found this fascinating, because if you look at the kinds of natural challenges that we have had as a Nation, one would think that the economy would have been not terribly vibrant. But here is a portion of a paragraph under the economic and financial developments in 2006. ``Although last year's hurricanes caused the pace of aggregate economic activity around the turn of the year to be uneven, real GDP, gross domestic product, increased at an average annual rate of 3.6 percent for the final quarter of 2005 and first quarter of 2006, about the same pace that prevailed during the preceding year-and-a-half. Over this period, payroll employment posted additional solid gains and the unemployment rate declined even further.''

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of positive information, the kind of good news that we in this Congress ought to be sharing with each other about the tax policy that has been enacted and about the consequences of that tax policy and how that is benefiting the job performance and the job creation throughout our economy.

What about the household sector? This monetary report breaks down our economy in many different areas. The household sector, consumer spending, you have to have money in order to spend it, as you know, Mr. Speaker. Over the first half of 2006, rising employment and the lagged effect of increases in wealth continued to provide support for spending by households, the continued increase in household spending.

How about the business sector? Fixed investment, real business fixed investment increased at a solid rate on average during the final quarter of 2005 and the first quarter of 2006. Over that period, real business spending for new equipment and software rose at an annual rate of 9.75 percent, a pace similar to that over the first three-quarters of 2005.

It is why you see this chart that demonstrates the kind of economic growth. You can't have economic growth without investment in our economy, and the business sector continues to believe strongly in our economy and the positive effects that their investment will continue to have.

How about the government sector? That is something that folks kind of track to make certain that resources are available for the Federal Government and State and local governments to be able to cover the needs of our society. In terms of the Federal Government, the quote here in this Monetary Policy Report is that ``The deficit in the Federal unified budget narrowed further during the past year. Over the 12 months ending in June the unified budget recorded a deficit of $276 billion, about $60 billion less than during the comparable period last year.''

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the kind of tax policies that have been put in place have resulted in a decreasing level of deficit, a decreasing level of deficit. When I am home, I know it is kind of like you, Mr. Speaker, when you meet with civic groups and neighborhood groups and constituents, and they are concerned about spending at the Federal level, and rightly so.

As President Reagan used to say, we do not have a revenue problem in Washington; we have got a spending problem. And we do. And we are working to decrease that level of spending. But we are also appreciating and realizing that tax policy has consequences, and that good tax policy results in economic growth and increased revenue to the Federal Government in order to cover the kinds of appropriate expenses.

We will talk about spending in just a little bit, Mr. Speaker. How about State and local governments? ``The fiscal positions of States and localities continue to improve through early 2006. In particular, revenues appear on track to post a relatively strong gain for a third consecutive year.''

Mr. Speaker, that kind of quote in the Board of Governors Federal Reserve System Monetary Policy Report to Congress, one would think if you read that, understood that, and believed that to be true, which I believe it to be true, that you would not hold the kind of ``Chicken Little'' attitude that many folks around here hold, about saying that the sky is falling.

In fact, the economy is ticking along pretty doggone well. We are going to go through a lot of numbers tonight to demonstrate that in fact we have good news to tell the American people. Good nows to tell the American people.

How about international trade? This is an area of great concern to me and many of my constituents. What about what is going on in the area of international trade? ``Real exports of goods and services increased.'' Exports increased, Mr. Speaker. You do not hear that often. You certainly do not see it on the nightly news.

Real exports of goods and services increased 14\3/4\ percent at an annual rate in the first quarter of 2006, far faster than the 6\1/2\ percent rate recorded in 2005.

In the labor market. How about the labor market, unemployment and employment? Conditions in the labor market continued to improve in the first half of 2006.

Payroll employment increased 176,000 new jobs per month, on average, during the first quarter, a rate roughly in line with the relatively brisk pace that prevailed during 2004 and 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to share those with you and with Members of the House so that they would understand and appreciate that when you talk about the truth and when you talk about facts and you have individuals whose job it is to shoot straight with the Congress and straight with the American people, the kind of information that you can derive here leads one to believe that the economy is doing pretty doggone well.

Now, some folks say, well, it may be doing well, but it probably is not doing as well as it is elsewhere. You have heard that. Mr. Speaker, I know there are some folks who believe that. But thank goodness there are groups of folks who are looking at our economic performance as it relates to the rest of the world, especially the major industrialized nations of the world.

This is a report from the Joint Economic Committee that compares the economy in the United States with the economies in the major Western countries, Canada, European countries, European nations and the Japanese economy.

And this was comparing the performance since the year 2001. That is the last 5 years. I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker, a few quotes: ``Although some people have expressed dissatisfaction about the performance of the U.S. economy, the economic data show that since 2001 the United States economy has outperformed every other large developed economy.''

Mr. Speaker, did you catch that? The United States economy, since 2001, has outperformed every other large developed economy. That is good news. That is good news. But it is news that isn't often shared here on the floor of the House, certainly is not news that you see in your newspaper, or that you see on the nightly news. That is remarkable news, as a matter of fact.

There is a reason for it. I believe it to be the policies that have been put into place by this Republican Congress, especially the tax policy that was proposed by the President and enacted. But that quote, again, Mr. Speaker: ``The United States economy since 2001 has outperformed every other large developed economy.''

Real GDP growth. We rank first in economic growth in the world in terms of industrialized nations. First place in job creation. First in job creation. Largest cumulative increase in industrial production. Largest cumulative increase in industrial production, 4.6 percent. First in labor productivity growth.

Mr. Speaker, that is all wonderful, wonderful news, remarkable news as a matter of fact. Again, it astounds me that we do not have this kind of discussion going on on the floor of the House more often. Because these are all good news items.

They are the kinds of things that when shared with the American people result in a different kind of attitude about our Nation, about the direction in which we are headed, about the kinds of consequences that occur with appropriate and responsible economic policy, not the kinds of economic policy that has been proposed by some in this Congress which is to increase your taxes, because they believe that in order to increase revenue to the Federal Government you got to increase taxes.

We have demonstrated time and again if you decrease taxes, if you put more money back in the hands of people, in the purses of Americans across this Nation, and the back pockets of Americans, what happens? The economy flourishes. The economy flourishes.

We are going to go through some other numbers here, and I am going share a number of different charts again because I think that oftentimes these charts just explain a lot that brings things to focus. You have heard a picture is worth a thousands words; that certainly is true when you are talking about some economic figures.

I mentioned that there had been stronger than expected economic growth in the opening quarter of 2006. The economy has grown 18 consecutive quarters, and real GDP grew at an annual rate of 5.6 percent for the first quarter of the year.

Since the beginning of 2003, Mr. Speaker, real or inflation-adjusted, not counting for inflation, GDP growth has averaged 4 percent per year, which exceeds the World War II, post-World War II average of 3.4 percent per year.

So since the end of World War II, the average GDP growth annually in this Nation has been 3.4 percent. And since the beginning of 2003, because of the economic policies enacted by this Congress and by this President, we have seen an average growth of 4 percent, greater than the average over the last 60 years.

That is positive news, Mr. Speaker. That is positive news. This chart demonstrates much of that. Along this axis here we have the quarters. The green dotted line, vertical line here, is when the tax, appropriate tax relief, tax reductions went into place, and what you see after that is 12 straight quarters of 4 percent average growth.

Good news. Good news, Mr. Speaker. This demonstrates business investment over that same period of time. Prior to the tax cuts, again the Tax Savings Act was put into place at this point where the green vertical line is. Prior to that, the kind of business investment in the economy, and, you know, Mr. Speaker, that business investment is so remarkably important to be able to increase the number of jobs, to have our economy flourish.

Before that point, there was not positive business investment in our economy. There was uncertainty. We had 9/11. We had come through a recession. And business wanted to have some predictability to our economic policies. And what happened with the tax reduction is that they gained that predictability, that reliability of a positive economic policy from this Congress and from this President.

What happened since then? Twelve straight quarters of positive business investment. What has happened with that is that we have seen remarkable, impressive job growth and economic expansion. As I mentioned, the economy has created 5.4 million jobs since August of 2003.

And if you see the job growth that has occurred over that period of time, it is impressive. That is why I like charts, Mr. Speaker, because they just speak volumes. Again, time is down on this axis down below here: 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. This vertical green line is when the tax, appropriate tax reduction policy went into effect.

You see the growth in jobs. What has happened since that point is a steady growth in jobs over that period of time. 5.3 million new jobs; 5.3 million new jobs over that period of time. Just remarkable. I mean truly, truly remarkable.

Now, some folks say, well, how is that cause and effect? Do they really have anything to do with one another? This chart is a little busy, but I think that it demonstrates what all of us know kind of in our instinct, and that is the business investment, these are the bar graph here, the red portion of the bar graph is the business investment. Remember we had 12 straight quarters of business investment after the tax reductions, the appropriate tax reductions that stimulated the economy so well, 12 straight quarters.

This line, this blue line that goes up and down, and follows, frankly, if you watch closely, follows business investment. As businesses invest, back in early 2000, what happens? You have an increase in new jobs. As businesses withdraw and retract and decrease their investment in the economy, because of unpredictability, because of concern about the economy, then what happens is that jobs decrease.

With the tax reductions, with the appropriate tax reductions, allowing more Americans to keep more of their hardearned money, what happens is that business recognizes that that is a good thing. They invest and jobs increase remarkably, 5.3 million new jobs created since 2003, since August of 2003.

I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, to concentrate a little bit of time on the unemployment rate. When I originally studied anything about economics a number of years ago, the economists at that time would say that if you had an unemployment rate of 6 percent, your unemployment rate was 6 percent, that that was considered full employment, that because of people changing jobs, between jobs, considering looking for a job in a different area, that an unemployment rate of 6 percent was full employment.

Well, Mr. Speaker, at this point, as you well know, we have an unemployment rate of 4.6 percent. I have got a chart that demonstrates that in comparison to historical average. 4.6 percent unemployment rate. And you see here that the 40-year average is 6.0. That was considered full employment, certainly over that period of time, 40-year average. In the 1990s the average was 5.8 percent.

But what is it now at this point? 4.6 percent. Mr. Speaker, that truly is full employment. Remarkably positive news to share with the American people. But you just do not hear that as often as one ought. When you see those kind of statistics, 4.6 percent is below the average unemployment rate for the 1960s, for the 1970s, for the 1980s, and for the 1990s, phenomenal. And again the reason for that is appropriate tax policy, appropriate economic policy, put in place by this Republican Congress and by this President.

So the robust economy has been truly remarkable. Job growth has been impressive, especially when you think about it, Mr. Speaker, think about what has happened over the last 5 years, over this period of time when those policies have been in place and the challenges that we have had to our economy.

Just to name a few, we had the stock market decline beginning in 2000. The recession that we had at the beginning of this decade, the terrorist attacks on 9/11 certainly affected the economy to a huge degree.

The consequences and the responsibilities that we have clearly, that all of us believe are so remarkably important in waging the global war on terror, the hurricanes, devastating hurricanes of last fall and before. We oftentimes, because of the magnitude of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we oftentimes do not recall the kinds of annual hurricanes and storms and natural disasters that oftentimes sap much of the resources.

And then the higher energy prices. All of these things, and just one could be thought to have affected in a remarkably adverse way our economy. But what has happened, Mr. Speaker? What has happened is that economic policy in place, appropriate tax reductions in place, allowing the American public to keep more of their hardearned money. And what happens is that the economy flourishes and we have an unemployment rate of 4.6 percent.

Now, it has been said that in order to increase tax receipts to the Federal Government, in order to increase revenue that is coming into the Federal Government, you got to raise taxes. You hear that all of the time from

folks who say, we need more money, we need more of your money, America. We need more of your money in order to pay for the kinds of programs that the Federal Government has to run.

But President Kennedy knew it, President Reagan knew it, President George W. Bush knows it, this Republican Congress knows it, and that is that when you decrease taxes, kind of counterintuitive, but when you decrease taxes, what happens is that the economy flourishes, we have talked about that a lot this evening, the economy flourishes, the number of jobs increase, the amount of money that is being paid to individuals increases, the number of folks who are employed increases, and because of all of that, the tax receipts actually increase.

And it is important to appreciate that, because unless one understands that, Mr. Speaker, unless you appreciate that the lower taxes are, the higher tax revenue you get, then you are going to draw a wrong conclusion about how we ought to proceed as a Nation.

The CBO forecast, the Congressional Budget Office forecast down there on the far right was for 16.8 percent of a share of the GDP for tax receipts. The forecast for the budget in fiscal year 2005 was the same. What happened? What happened because of the tax policies is that we have a remarkable increase in tax receipts to the Federal Government.

That is good news, Mr. Speaker. That means that the tax policy is working. You allow Americans to keep more of their hardearned money, then what happens is that the Federal Government sees more tax revenue, and hopefully we will be able to continue to decrease taxes on Americans, all across the spectrum, all across the spectrum.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is always important to talk, when we talk about taxes, and when we talk about the economy, you oftentimes hear our friends on the other side of the aisle trying to divide people between the haves and the have-nots, the rich and the poor, upper class and middle class, lower class. They will oftentimes say things like, people need to pay their fair share of taxes. You hear it all of the time, Mr. Speaker. I know you do.

Well, I think it is incredibly important to demonstrate who, in fact, is paying taxes at this point in our Nation. This chart just speaks volumes. Absolute volumes. On this axis here we have the percent of taxes that are paid by what percent of individuals who are in our Nation.

The top 1 percent wage earners. Mr. Speaker, the top 1 percent wage earners in our Nation pay over 30 percent of the taxes. The top 1 percent pay over 30 percent of the taxes. You see that the top 5 percent pay over 50 percent of the taxes. And you go on down and appreciate that largest bar there is the top 50 percent of wage earners in this Nation pay over 96 percent of the taxes in this Nation.

That is a progressive tax rate. That is the kind of tax policy that we have in place. I think we ought to decrease a lot of those taxes. But it is important for people to appreciate that folks in the bottom 50 percent of the wage earners who are striving to get into this area up here, and we are working as hard as we can to have policies in place that will allow them to do that, but the bottom 50 percent of wage earners in this Nation pay about 3\1/2\ percent of the taxes in this Nation.

I do not say that to belittle anybody. I say that to bring truth and fact to the discussion and to the debate. So when you hear people say, people need to pay their fair share of taxes, well, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that folks are paying their fair share and then some, and then some of taxes that we have in this Nation.

Now, we hear a lot of talk, Mr. Speaker, about the deficit, about the deficit, and how the deficit is too high and how we are not being responsible in our spending. I would agree with folks that the deficit is too high. Because I believe, as I have mentioned earlier, that we ought to have a balanced budget, that we ought not spend any more money than we take in.

But you hear people all the time saying this is the worst deficit in the history of the Nation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in fact, remember it is the Official Truth Squad, in fact what we have seen over the past 12 months is a Federal deficit as a percent of GDP, Gross Domestic Product, of 2.1 percent.

Now the average in the 1990s, the average in the 1990s, 2.2 percent. That is higher Federal deficit as it relates to percentage. You can talk about absolute numbers. But absolute numbers do not compare apples to apples, because of inflation and expansion in the economy, and the level of Federal revenue.

See, it is important to talk about percent of gross domestic product when you talk about what the Federal deficit is. Again, this is not where I would like it to be. I would like it to be zero. And you remember the policies that we put on the floor of the House to vote on, the PAYGO policies and the balanced budget policies that we put on the floor of the House to vote on? Our friends on the other side of the aisle overwhelmingly rejected them, overwhelmingly. That is the kind of cooperation, we need greater cooperation in order to bring that down.

But in spite of that, in spite of their reluctance to assist us in appropriate fiscal decisions, what we see is a 2.1 percent Federal deficit as it relates to gross domestic product. Ten years ago what was it? 2.3 percent. And, remember, the average for the 1990s was 2.2 percent.

So I think it is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, for us to be honest when we talk about the economy, to be honest when we talk about the budget, and to be honest when we talk about where the problem is as it relates to the budget. Where is the big money being spent? Where is it going? And I have got a few charts that I would like to share with you on that, Mr. Speaker.

These are pie charts that demonstrate where Federal monies go when the Federal Government spends the large pot of money that it does every single year, where does it go? Where does it go? And this breaks it into three different areas in the pie chart and over a 20-year period of time, 1995, 2005, and 2016. And the three different areas, the green is the discretionary portion of the budget, the red is the interest, and the yellow is the mandatory portion.

The mandatory portion is primarily Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, those programs that are oftentimes called entitlement programs. I don't like to call them entitlement programs because I think that means that you absolutely can't reform them, that there isn't any way to be able to change positively those programs for the beneficiaries and for all members of our society. But Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

In 1995, those mandatory programs, automatic programs oftentimes I like to call them, spent 48.7 percent of the Federal budget. 48.7 percent of the Federal budget. Now, these are programs that are on kind of an automatic spending course. If we as a Congress don't act, then they continue to increase at a rate greater than inflation. In 2005, those three programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, basically those three programs spent 53.4 percent of the Federal budget. Mr. Speaker, that line continues to increase. In 2016, if no changes are made or put in place, those three programs will incorporate 63.9 percent of the Federal budget. And in 30 years, Mr. Speaker, if I had a pie chart that had us 30 years down the road, the entire pie would be yellow. The entire pie would be yellow, because those three programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, would consume the entire Federal budget.

Now, I point that out because I think it is important for people to appreciate that one of the responsibilities that we have in Congress is to make certain that that kind of economic policy doesn't occur. We are living in a changing demographic in our society, and one that will not sustain that kind of mandatory spending. And so the President 1\1/2\ years ago or so and many of us in Congress felt that it was appropriate to begin moving in a direction of greater fiscal responsibility when it comes to spending in the area of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and we selected Social Security to begin that debate.

And as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, as so often happens regretfully and regrettably is that the folks who oppose any responsible spending here from Washington demagogue that issue to a

degree that they scared every single individual across this Nation into believing that the kind of policies that were being proposed were going to destroy the program. Well, nothing could have been further from the truth.

What we were attempting to do was to make it where that kind of growth curve in a mandatory or an automatic spending program didn't occur so there was greater fiscal responsibility here at the level of the Federal Government and we were attempting to empower individuals in their communities to a greater degree with the kind of resources that they would gain from their employment.

If we don't, if we don't make certain that we address and fundamentally reform those three programs, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, we will not be able to sustain the kind of Federal Government, the kind of policies either in defense or in transportation or in energy, all of the things that we need to be doing as a Nation in a positive way to move forward, we will not be able to do those things unless, unless we responsibly, responsibly, go ahead and reform the mandatory spending.

This chart points out the fact that the growth in those mandatory spending programs, if the law isn't changed right now, if we don't act positively together as a Congress, if we don't change that, these programs will grow at a rate of about 6.2 percent every single year.

Now, you see that the rate of inflation is estimated to be about 2.4 percent. Well, those programs will outpace the rate of inflation. They will also outpace the growth in membership in those programs. That is again, Mr. Speaker, an economic policy that is truly unsustainable. That is not something that we can continue as a Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that we are continuing to try almost weekly to encourage our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to assist us in being fiscally responsible, helping to solve many of the challenges that we have. This week is no different. We will have on the floor of the House this week H.R. 5766, which is an act called The Government Efficiency Act. And what it does is sets up a framework to target inefficiency, waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government to make certain, to make certain that we route out that kind of waste, fraud, and abuse.

I want you, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that you watch how our friends on the other side of the aisle vote on that, because you heard them earlier say that making certain that we decrease inefficiency, waste, fraud, and abuse is so incredibly important as a Federal Government. I believe that to be true. We have got a bill that will do that. We are going to give them the opportunity to vote ``yes,'' vote positively and vote ``yes'' on something. So I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to keep an eye on H.R. 5766 as it comes up for a vote this evening.

I have got just a few moments left, but I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Georgia, Representative Lynn Westmoreland, who is a wonderfully fiscally responsible member of the freshman class, and I yield to my friend from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate those comments so much, and I appreciate you reminding me about the Deficit Reduction Act. It was in my notes, and I wanted to make certain we pointed that out. We had that bill passed earlier this year in January. It would save the American people $40 billion.

Thank you so much. I appreciate that, appreciate your comments, your pointing out again the Deficit Reduction Act that we passed on the floor of this House earlier this year with not a single vote from other side, again $40 billion in savings, which is just simply decreasing the increase that is going up in those mandatory programs, many of those mandatory programs.

So I appreciate you pointing that out, and it just really is a privilege for me to be able to, on behalf of the leadership and behalf of the Republican Conference, to be able to come to the floor tonight and to share some positive news, to share some facts and share some truth about the American economy, about the importance of allowing Americans to keep more of their hardearned money; and when you do that, when we do that as a Nation, as a national policy, what happens is that the economy flourishes and people are better off.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to being able to share more comments at some point in the future. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you tonight.

Mr. Speaker, some have asked why the House will be holding hearings around our country about illegal immigration. Well, the concise reason is the out-of-touch Reid-Kennedy Senate bill.

The Senate passed legislation that clearly flies in the face of common sense. The American people don't want amnesty. The Reid-Kennedy Bill includes it. The American people don't want to provide Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. The Reid-Kennedy bill includes it.

The Senate voted to give illegals things that American citizens, legal American citizens, don't get, like in-state college tuition for all.

This makes no sense. It is unacceptable and it is unbelievable and it is just plain wrong.

The American people are fed up with this reckless attitude and poor policy. Acceptance of the Senate plan is something for which the House will not stand; and once the American people know about it, through our hearings, they won't stand for it either. Then the American people will speak with such passion and vehemence and clarity that the House and Senate may act together and do the right thing first, control our borders and enforce current law.