Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the conference and leadership for allowing me to come before the House during this hour today and to present a number of different issues with my colleagues in the House of Representatives.

We are going to bring another edition of the Official Truth Squad today. And folks ask, what is the Official Truth Squad? And I guess the simplest way to explain it is that it is a group of individuals in the House of Representatives who are interested in making sure that the American people have the truth presented to them so that they can make appropriate decisions. And it grew out of the group of freshmen Members of Congress who were elected for the first time to Congress in 2004, and after a number of months here, we would meet on a regular basis, met about once a week, and when we would talk to each other, we would get the

same kind of sense about what was happening on the floor of the House. We were, frankly, disgusted with all of the personal attacks, the lack of cooperation, the leveling of charges, and, frankly, so many times, comments that were made that simply were not true. And so we said, what on Earth can we do? So we created what we call the Official Truth Squad. And we try to come here as often as possible, almost every day that we are in session, and talk about issues that are of importance to the American people and present the facts.

We have got a quote that we are so fond of and it comes from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Senator Moynihan said, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.'' And here in Washington, we hear something repeated over and over and over again, so often that you think it is a fact, that you think it is the truth, but, in fact, it is not. And we have just been treated to an hour from some of our friends on the other side of the aisle with many, many issues that were remarkably distorted. Some of them outright untrue. And so our concern is that the American people, in order to make correct decisions about what direction this country ought to go, they need the facts. They need the truth.

I have told folks oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, I am a physician. Before I came to Congress, I was a medical doctor. And when I would see a patient, I could not get to the right diagnosis unless I was given the true information, either in a lab test or talking with the patient or whatever it was. And the same is true in public policy. Unless you get the truth, unless you get real honest information, you just cannot get to the right solution because you do not have all of the information that you need. So everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and there are a lot of opinions here in Washington, Mr. Speaker, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

And just by way of clarification of a number of things that folks have heard today and oftentimes, but most recently within the last hour, I was sitting here in the House, and I had to write down one of the comments that was made because it was just so outrageous, and it was, ``Everything that is supposed to be up is down and everything that is supposed to be down is up.'' And I guess I am supposed to take the gentleman at his word, and if that is the case, then I would like to point to a few things that are either up or down and are moving in the right direction, frankly, Mr. Speaker. And one of them is the number of jobs that have been created in this Nation over the last 3 or 4 years.

A chart says it so much better than I can, but this is a chart that shows the number of new jobs, these are new jobs in America, since January of 2002 until January of this year. And what you see for the first 2 years is a significant decrease in jobs and then on about the end of 2003 or the beginning of 2004, it began to tick up, and now we have, month after month after month, over 30 months of new job creation in the hundreds of thousands, almost 5 million new jobs created in the last 2 to 3 years. So that is something that is up that I guess the gentleman wants to go down; is that right, Mr. Speaker? This chart does not even include the month of February, which was 243,000 new jobs across this Nation.

Here is another chart that shows the direction of job growth. And again, the axis down here is January of 2002 through January of 2006, and you see what happens to job growth is that on or about the first part of 2003, it begins to tick up, and it is ticking up month after month after month after month and the unemployment rate ticking down. The unemployment rate last month, Mr. Speaker, 4.8 percent across this Nation. That is lower than the average for the 1970s and the 1980s and the 1990s. I guess that is something that the gentleman wants to go up instead of down; is that right, Mr. Speaker? These are good numbers. This is good news, economic news, across this Nation. And saying that it is something different, confusing people, distorting things, telling things that are, frankly, not true does a complete disservice to everybody in our Nation because if you are given misinformation, you cannot make correct decisions. So what the Official Truth Squad is interested in is real information, honest information, the real numbers, and then we are confident that people will make the right decision.

Here is another number that I guess the gentleman wants to see go in a different direction. This is Federal revenues. This is tax revenue. And up until 2003, it was ticking down. And then what happened in 2003 is that there was a tax cut. There was a tax decrease, and what happened was that Federal revenue increased after that and continues to increase. In fact, we are now at a rate of Federal revenue increase over where it was at the beginning of 2000. And it is kind of counterintuitive, but what happens when you decrease taxes is that you give people more of their money back, and they are able to spend more or save more or invest more, and it spurs the economy. So, Mr. Speaker, those are numbers that are moving in the right direction, not the wrong direction.

A couple other items that are very specific that were mentioned within the last hour, and the record just has to be corrected because, again, truthfulness is imperative if we are to make correct decisions here. This is the issue of port security funding, and what you heard recently was, frankly, a remarkable distortion of the truth. Port security funding in 2001, it was about $30 million. Port security funding last year, over $3 billion. Port security funding request for this year, nearly $4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, you can argue about whether or not there ought to be that amount of money or more or less, but what you ought not do is distort the truth to people and tell them that that is not what is occurring, that there are not resources going into port security. It is just wrong. It is not fair to the American people. It is not fair to the discourse here. And, frankly, it creates a greater cynicism for politics than there ought to be. We need to be working together here.

The challenge of port security is not a Republican challenge. It is not a Democrat challenge. It is an American challenge. And an American challenge requires that Americans work together. We solve problems best when we work together. So I encourage my friends on the other side who oftentimes fondly distort things to work with us.

You hear them talk about their national security agenda. Well, I think it is important that we look at the truth. It is important to look at the record. What they have said is that one of their recommendations is to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. But on a roll call vote here in the United States House of Representatives, they voted ``no'' on establishing the Department of Homeland Security, rollcall 367, July, 2002.

On a rollcall vote in July 2004, they voted ``no'' on $21 billion in funding to strengthen border protections.

Now, that is the truth, Mr. Speaker. That is the truth. And it is important that people all across this Nation know that.

One more item as it relates to national security and then we will move on to a different topic that I think is important for the American people to know the truth about as well. And this is what they have said in their national security plan, the folks on the other side, and they talk about the need to increase human intelligence capabilities, eliminate terrorist breeding grounds, secure loose nuclear materials, stop nuclear weapons from development in Iran and North Korea. It all sounds wonderful. But what do they do? Rollcall vote 393, Democrats voted repeatedly to slash funding for intelligence activities.

One of the ones that astounds me so, is that recently, June of 2004, rollcall vote 293 on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, there was a resolution that said we support the work of the intelligence community. We support the men and women who are working so hard to make certain that you and I are safe, Mr. Speaker. And what happened? They vote ``no.'' They cannot even stand up here in the House of Representatives and say, we support the men and women who are trying to keep us safe.

So I think it is imperative, it is imperative that we talk about truthfulness here on the floor of the House. And, again, if we do not talk about the

truth, if we did not present all the information accurately and appropriately, then the American people really cannot make an appropriate decision.

Now, today we are going to talk about 527s, and I have been joined by a number of folks who are members of our Republican conference, and I am pleased to have them join us today. I want to put up a poster about 527s.

And you say, Mr. Speaker, what is a 527? Well, a 527 is something that folks across this Nation may not have heard about but they probably heard from them. And it is called a 527 organization because it is a political organization whose taxation is defined in the section 527 of the Federal tax code. And we are here to talk today about 527s because we believe fundamentally that they were formed because of a loophole in the law and that they are fundamentally unfair and that they do not result in any transparency or accountability as it comes to elections.

I want to just highlight a couple of things and then look forward to comments from my colleagues.

Five hundred twenty-seven groups really result in no transparency and no accountability. And it is not unfair to Republicans or Democrats; it is unfair to the American people. Information that is not filed for a 527 or posted with Federal Elections Commission, so there is no way to get accountability. You do not know who is donating to these groups. There is a lack of proper disclosure requirements for filing and donors and disbursements. Where do they spend their money? There is no way to tell. Filled out forms are often incomplete and disclosure is imperfect, again making it so that it is unfair to the American people because they will not know, they cannot know because the information is not available, who is funding certain ads or activities.

They fall under the guidelines of the IRS. And as such, as you and I know, Mr. Speaker, the IRS is a huge, giant entity that, frankly, cannot figure out who is coming or going, and they certainly cannot with these organizations. And funding is dominated by a few wealthy donors, and I know that we will talk specifically about that. Unlimited giving, remarkable unlimited giving, is alive and well in the political environment. We believe that that ought to change.

And I am so pleased to be joined by some of my colleagues, initially Congressman Patrick McHenry, who is an official member of the Official Truth Squad, a member of the freshmen class, from North Carolina. He has just great experience with political activity and also great experience with the importance of truthfulness and fairness in the public arena.

And I am pleased to yield to my friend from North Carolina.

You mentioned one person, George Soros. I just happen to have prepared a poster here, because you talk about big money in politics, and the stated goal by some was to get big money out of politics. In fact, that is exactly what has not occurred. The problem with what we have right now, as you well know, is that there is no way for folks to get this information easily or to know what this money is being spent on. George Soros spent $27 million, as you have said. And then there are others here as well that I would love to have you highlight. I know that you have got information about that.

I appreciate those comments, because they are right on where we need to get to. The problem is that politics is the art of the possible so what we have got working here in this Chamber is the possibility of appropriate reform right now. The accountability and disclosure that you mentioned, I think it is important to mention these numbers, Mr. Speaker, because they are staggering. The American people need to know that. George Soros, we have talked about, $27 million. Peter Lewis, $23.9 million. This is personal money coming into campaigns that the American people don't know anything about. There is no way for them to get that information. Herbert and Marian Sandler, $14 million. Stephen Bing you mentioned, but you didn't mention the number. The number is $13.9 million. That is money, Mr. Speaker, that is being used to influence elections and nobody knows about it.

When you and I, Congressman McHenry, have our elections, what do we do? We put on everything that we have got, Paid for by Price for Congress, or Paid for by McHenry for Congress. We have to disclose that. And that is appropriate. What happens when they spend nearly $80 million? Nobody knows.

I would like to yield now to a good friend and colleague who is not a freshman, who has been around here for a little while, but he is a good friend and

he has excellent insight into this and so many other issues and is truly interested, Mr. Speaker, in making certain that the American people have the information that they need in order to make appropriate decisions. Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor from the great State of Virginia, I welcome you and look forward to your comments.

I appreciate you really clarifying that issue so very well. I think it is important that we talk today about what kinds of things these 527s do, because people say, ``I don't know what a 527 is. How am I supposed to know? They would never interact with me.'' That is what people think. But I am stunned at the number of folks that I know who have gotten phone calls from 527s. They are what are called push calls, so that they are trying to push an individual in a particular direction to believe something that may often not be true about an individual candidate or an individual person.

Accountability really is what it is all about. It is so important for people to appreciate that when we make a phone call or when we put an ad on the television or when we send something out, we have got to say who it is coming from. We have got to say it is coming from our campaign. When people get their information from other sources, when they get it from the newspaper, they know who is giving them information. You can see who wrote the article. You know where the editorial is coming from by looking at the editorial boards.

When you watch the evening news, you know where you are getting your information from. When even PACs, political action committees, which have often times gotten a bad name, but even PACs have to disclose what they are doing, that they are paying for this so Americans across the Nation can understand and appreciate who is paying for it, who is pushing that discussion point or that argument; and then they are able to respond. But what happens with 527s is that nobody knows, nobody knows.

I have got an actual phone call that went out and this was a 527 that was put together to attack the Medicare part D program. Now, I do not want to talk about the merits of the program, but I want to talk about the importance of Americans knowing who is contacting them. This phone call went something like this:

Hello, I am calling from Working America. You and your family must be having trouble with the Medicare prescription drug plan. Ask Congressman So and So. Congressman So and So received so much in contributions from big drug companies and HMOs. Congressman So and So voted for the drug program and has drug companies and the HMOs laughing all the way to the bank and the rest of us scratching our heads. You should call Congressman So and So's number and tell him and her to stop working for drug companies.

Now, whether you believe that message or not, I do not happen to believe that, whether you believe that or not, you ought to know who is paying for it. That is the importance of the issue that we are talking about today.

There is no way to know who is paying for it, and there is no way to contact them. You are absolutely right.

These groups all have wonderful names. This one is Working America. It is a great name, but can you find them? There is no way to find them.

I appreciate you so much pointing out one of the stock and trades of the 527s, which is what I call ``the politics of division.'' And it is so often used because it pits one group against another. And it is cynical and it is not an honest debate at all. It is calling somebody up and saying, Isn't Joe Schmoe a bum and don't you think you ought to do something about it? You have no idea who is calling, no idea who is paying for it.

Accountability and transparency, that is what we are after. And people all across this Nation are being affected by 527s, and they may not even know it. They are active in over 30 States, countless congressional districts in the Nation, and they are affecting people's opinions even though the folks do not know that they are there and they are paying for this message.

We have been joined by Congresswoman Blackburn of Tennessee who is a wonderful leader, an honorary member of the Official Truth Squad. We welcome you today, and I look forward to your comments.

I thank the gentlewoman so much for her participation and her leadership and for joining us on this issue today because the items that you mention are so important: disclosure, transparency, fairness.

As I mentioned before, this isn't fairness for Republicans or fairness for Democrats. This is fairness for Americans. It is fairness for the system. We talked about 527s being a PAC by any other name so they ought to follow the same rules. That is what ought to occur in the House next week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia to talk about the solution, where do we go from here and how do we solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for laying out what the plan is, a positive plan, a plan to level the playing field and to make the system fair.

I wonder if Mr. McHenry has some comments about where we go from here. What is the positive solution from here?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments, and I think it is so important to focus on the issue of fixing and reforming the system because that is what our constituents send us here to do, to fix and to reform the system. This system is broken, allowing more individuals, some individuals to have a greater influence than they otherwise might be able to have, and it is not fair. It is not a level playing field.

I just have a few more moments left, but I wonder if the gentlewoman from Tennessee might have some closing comments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman so much and appreciate your participation today and leadership on this issue, along with my good friends from North Carolina and Virginia.

The issue of 527 groups is really about the issue of fairness, as has been mentioned, and the truth of the situation that we currently have right now is that there is a loophole in the current law. There is no transparency, and there is no accountability, which means that Americans can get information from people that they do not know. They do not know who is sending it to them. They do not know what their agenda is, and there is no way to find out. That is not a system that any of us would devise.

To cut to the bottom line, which is the bottom line, funding is dominated by a few wealthy donors, and we have a lot of talk about soft money. What is soft money? Soft money is unlimited money, and in this case you have got a number of individuals giving tens of millions of dollars to affect the political process with no transparency, no accountability and no fairness.

So what we stand here today to talk about and to present to the American people is the truth of the situation, a proposal for a solution that is fair to all Americans. The current is a system, as I mentioned, that is not unfair to Republicans or unfair to Democrats. It is unfair to Americans.

So what we are here to talk about and to present to the American people is a system and a solution that will fix and reform the system in a way that is fair.

I urge all of my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, Republican, Democrat, to come together next week and to work

for a positive solution to a real challenge that we have in America, that would bring about a positive solution for all Americans and a better system of electoral process that we have in our Nation and allow each individual American a better opportunity to decide.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again and want to thank the leadership for allowing us to participate. I thank my colleagues from Tennessee and North Carolina and Virginia for participating today.

Mr. Speaker, on February 16th of this year, Atlanta Gas Light celebrated 150 years of quality and continued service to the people of Georgia. What a privilege it is to take this opportunity to thank Atlanta Gas Light for being a leader in innovation and economic development.

Natural gas is a cornerstone of the energy supply for Georgia residents and businesses. From cooking food and heating our homes to lighting our streets, natural gas has helped make Atlanta the commercial leader of the Southeast.

Atlanta Gas Light has become a community leader as well volunteering time and money and giving back to the citizens of Georgia. In addition to their own accomplishments, Atlanta Gas Light recognizes other community leaders in Georgia with its Shining Light Award. Since 1963, recipients of the Shining Light Award have been recognized by gas lamps erected throughout the city in their honor. This is just one of the many ways Atlanta Gas Light continues to give back to the City of Atlanta and the State of Georgia.

I applaud Atlanta Gas Light on their first 150 years as a business and community leader. Without a doubt, their continued leadership will help Atlanta grow and remain the center of the Southeast for the 21st Century.

Mr. Speaker, today, I recognize an American who has given so much to our community and our country.

In January of this year, Michael Matthews of the Roswell, Georgia, Police Department was named the 2005 Officer of the Year for his work as a patrol officer and SWAT team member. When Officer Matthews is not serving the Roswell Police Department, he dedicates his time to protect America as a member of the Army National Guard.

On August 30 of last year, First Sergeant Matthews was on patrol in Iraq when his convoy was struck by an IED. Suffering injuries requiring surgery, First Sergeant Matthews received the Purple Heart for being wounded in combat. The deepest gratitude of the American people go to First Sergeant Matthews and his fellow soldiers.

True patriots are protecting and serving their local communities, as well as our country at large. As these brave men and women stand on the front lines of the war on terrorism, there should be no limit to the time and opportunities we take here at home to remind the American people of their courageous and selfless acts.

I thank the chairman for yielding and for his hard work on this bill and the importance of this bill.

I am kind of stunned, because virtually every speaker from the other side has come down to the well or talked up there and talked about the ``$12 billion raid on student aid'' in the Deficit Reduction Act. Well, aside from the fact that that is not true, it is not what we are here to talk about. We are talking about bill 609.

We have heard this bill doesn't do much to help students attend college. We have heard if you vote for it, it is a missed opportunity. Well, Mr. Chairman, anyone voting against this bill, anyone voting against this bill is truly missing an opportunity to continue a very positive program.

Now, opponents can say what they want, but if you look at the figures, they don't lie. And what they tell you is that year after year after year we are increasing student aid.

What does this bill do? It strengthens Pell Grants, strengthens student aid, reduces red tape for students and graduates, removes barriers for nontraditional students, empowers consumers through sunshine and transparency in college costs. Also, it safeguards the privacy of students, eases college access for members and veterans of the armed services. It repeals duplicative and expired or unnecessary programs, and it promotes merit-based pay for teachers through the Teacher Incentive Fund, which is something I have a particular interest in.

The Teacher Incentive Fund specifically targets high-poverty schools, and it provides some extra compensation for teachers who achieve. The initiative rewards those who have delivered on student achievement. It was a recommendation of the bipartisan National Governors Association, which called for the creation of the Teacher Incentive Fund, and we responded.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a positive move in the right direction, and I urge all Members, Republicans and Democrats, to put politics aside and vote for education for our young people. Vote ``yes'' on 609.

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to come back to the floor tonight to discuss some issues of vital concern to Members of the House and all Americans.

I could not help but pick up on what the gentlewoman from California was saying just a moment ago about a number of issues. One of them was about Medicare Part D. We are going to talk about a lot of things tonight, but I want to start by talking about Medicare Part D.

I am a physician. I practiced orthopedic surgery for over 20 years in the Atlanta area. She mentioned there was a plan to delay or postpone the deadline for Medicare Part D which is the prescription drug formula for seniors. Nearly 28 million out of 42 million have already signed up. Many of them are finally getting medications for the first time.

She mentioned there was a plan to delay it and they could not get bipartisan support. I guess that is one of the things that brings me to this well almost night after night because what you hear down here just is not so. It is not the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who also believes that there ought to be an extension of that deadline. In fact, we have had a bill on that for over a year and we could not get a soul, not a soul on the other side of the aisle to support that bill. The reason for that is what brought about the Official Truth Squad.

The Official Truth Squad began with a group of freshmen Republicans who came here after the 2004 election to be Members of Congress and came here with wonderful vision and enthusiasm and positive spirit. And what we were met with oftentimes from the other side was really vitriol, was personal attacks, was a distortion of the truth, misinformation, disinformation.

We had been meeting on a weekly basis as a group and so we got together and we said how can we counter that. Because when I go home, I know that is what concerns many of my constituents. I suspect that is what you hear, Mr. Speaker, back at home. People ask why the level of rancor and why the level of partisanship.

What we thought to do in an effort to try to raise the level of discourse and decrease the kind of partisanship that goes on is to talk about truth, talk about issues in an open and honest manner and in a way that sheds light on issues.

Tonight you have heard an awful lot already about various issues, Mr. Speaker, that frankly have not been treated with the light of the day, if you will.

And so we have adopted, the Official Truth Squad has adopted a saying or a quote from a wonderful former United States Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan from New York, and he kind of crystallized what our frustration was, and that is, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. And so often around here, what happens is that people's opinion gets mistaken for facts. In fact, it has been said that if somebody says something three times in Washington, they think it is the truth, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on the truth. And so I want to touch on a couple of things before we get into our other issue tonight, and I want to talk a little about student loans, student aid. We are now dealing this week on the Higher Education Reauthorization bill in the United States House of Representatives. It is a bill that has to be adopted in order to continue the programs that are so vitally important to millions, millions of young people across this country in order to go to college and university and to better themselves and make a better life for both them and their family. And what you always hear from the other side, what you always hear is, oh, they are going to cut this, and they are going to cut that, and they are going to slash this, and they are going to slash that. And that is what we have heard tonight, Mr. Speaker.

But the Official Truth Squad has as a mission to shed the light of day on it and to talk about the truth. And I am fond of charts and posters, because I think that they really describe much more than I am able to do in word. And this chart here, this poster here demonstrates the increases, Mr. Speaker, I said, increases, not cuts, not slashes, I said increases in Federal student aid over the last 10 years. And anybody can plainly see that the amount of Federal loans, the amount of Federal grants, the amount of education tax benefits, the amount of Federal work study, all of them, all of them, Mr. Speaker, over the last 10 years rising year after year after year, and appropriately so, so young people can have an opportunity to realize the American dream. That is the positive issue. That is the real message. That is the truth. These numbers, these numbers don't lie. And so when you hear people talk about cuts or slashes, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that it just is really a fabrication. It is not the truth. It is not what is real. And you will hear them talk about Pell Grants. Pell Grants are the grants that the Federal Government provides for young people in order to go to colleges and universities, those young people who don't necessarily have the means to be able to afford it. It is a wonderful program, works extremely well, allows people to elevate themselves and really raise themselves up by their own boot straps. This is a telling graph, Mr. Speaker. This is a telling chart because it begins way back in 1986. And the yellow portion of this is when the Democrats were in control of the United States House of Representatives. And you will hear all about what they would do if they were able to control again. And I think it is important and instructive for the House of Representatives and for the American people to appreciate, well, don't tell me what you would do. Let us look at what you did. Let us look at the truth. And the truth, in fact, Mr. Speaker, is that Pell Grants provided for by the Federal Government for young individuals who are the most needy in our society in order to go to colleges and universities in fact were flat or decreased in the 10 years prior to 1996. And what has happened since then is an appropriate increase to be able to fund a program that allows young people, without means, to be able to go to colleges and universities. The red portion is what has happened under the Republican control of the United States House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, those are not cuts. Those are not slashes. They are appropriate increases in a program that helps young people who are most in need.

This is another chart that demonstrates what would happen in the next fiscal year, what would happen with the overall Pell Grant funding. This is 2000, 2006. And with increased budgeting, the next graph, 2000 again, and Fiscal Year 2007 would increase from $4,050 per individual to $5,050, a significant remarkable increase. And on the end, the number of Pell Grants recipients, the number of students being helped, 3.9 million in 2000, fiscal year 2007, 5.3 million individuals. This is not a decrease. These are not cuts. These are not slashes. And for anybody to say otherwise is just, it is not true. It is not honest. It doesn't do a credit to the debate. It does a disservice to all

Americans because it means that people aren't able to make appropriate decisions because they are not being given appropriate or accurate information.

And then, one final one on education that I just felt compelled to bring to the House this evening is the annual growth in education, Federal moneys for education over the last 5 years. Total education, remember, Mr. Speaker, what the mantra is out there is that there are being cuts and slashes in education programs all across this Nation. In fact, what has happened over the last 5 years, from 2000 to 2005, total education spending up an average of 9.1 percent. What we have done is required greater accountability. What we have done is said, if you are going to get Federal money, then you need to do a particular job and you need to make certain that you are doing it, and we need to make certain that you are doing that as well and having student accomplishment, that is what we have required. And so I think it is imperative that as we talk about issue after issue after issue here in Washington, and that when the American people listen and they pay attention to what we are doing, that they appreciate and understand and recognize that truth is important to the discussion, and that if we don't start with truth, we can't reach the right conclusion at all.

There are a number of other issues that have been talked about this evening and repeatedly over the past couple of months, one of them is the issue of Medicaid, something that is near and dear to my heart as a physician. I treated patients from all across the economic spectrum and understood that an individual's means didn't make a difference about how we cared for them. And so I take really a personal affront when individuals talk about slashing and cutting a program that is so vital to people who need to be able to access the health care system. And the Medicaid system is one of those that really irritates me when I hear people talk about it on the other side of the aisle, when they talk about these cuts and slashes that they describe, because it just is disingenuous and it does a disservice to the debate. And it does so because it is not the truth. It is not the truth. And these are the actual numbers, Mr. Speaker: 1995, $89 billion in Federal money being put out for Medicaid. And you can see the line, Mr. Speaker. It is a continual increase over the last 10 years. And it is an appropriate increase because we have covered more individuals. And it is an appropriate increase because it recognized that individuals in the Medicaid system needed to have access to the highest quality medical care. And so the average growth over the last 10 years, 7.4 percent per year. 7.4 percent per year. Mr. Speaker, it is not a cut. It is not a slash. That is an appropriate increase in a program that is caring for the most needy in our society, from $89 billion in 1995 to $181 billion in 2005.

We hear a lot of talk about what the quote cuts and slashes are going to do to our society. This is a difficult graph to tell the difference because this shows what the projected spending is over the next 5 years in the mandatory or automatic programs that we have which are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, three programs that the other side likes to talk about a lot because they talk about how the cuts in spending will wreak havoc in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is imperative that folks look at this all across this House chamber and appreciate that the difference between the baseline, which is the green line, and the administration proposal, which is full of all these remarkable changes that the other side alleges, is a difference in a 5.3 percent growth that is projected, which is part of the plan that has been adopted or recognized over the past number of years, but when economic situations change, and when it is important to get a handle on the amount of Federal spending and be fiscally responsible, the change that has been recommended by the President is a 5.1 percent a year growth over the next 5 years. That is right, Mr. Speaker. You heard correctly. All of the demagoguery about these programs, all of the negative comments about these programs, all of the personal attacks about these programs that do a disservice to our entire Nation and are simply untrue are all about the difference between the green line and the red line, a difference between 5.3 percent growth annually over the next 5 years and 5.1 percent growth over the next 5 years. So I would suggest to our friends on the other side of the aisle that it would be much more helpful to be positive, to be open to collegial activity, to bring solutions to the table, to talk about how we can best help individuals to help themselves all across our society, and not be so negative and demagogue every single issue that makes it so it is incredibly difficult to tell exactly what the truth is and where we are going.

You oftentimes hear them talk about the tax cuts for the wealthy and how that will decrease the amount of money coming into the Federal Government and how it will make it so that we can't fund the kinds of programs that we need. Well, President Kennedy knew something very, very brilliant and President Reagan knew the same thing and President Bush learned well, and that is that tax cuts don't decrease revenue to the Federal Government. They increase revenue to the Federal Government. And I know that sounds kind of contradictory, or that it is kind of counterintuitive. But in fact, that is what happens, and this chart shows that extremely well. In 2000, this is the level of revenue coming into the Federal Government under previous administration policies. And what happened, and you see that the line is decreasing because of the recession that we are in, the dotcom bubble burst and 9/ 11 occurred. And by 2003, we were on a pretty steady slope down.

Now, what happened in 2003 with the vertical green dotted line there, what happened is that the tax decreases. The appropriate fair tax decreases of this administration and of the Republican Congress went into effect. And then what you see happen is the tax receipts to the Federal Government increase significantly. In fact, they increase so much that in 2005 they were significantly greater than in 2000. Tax revenue increasing because of tax cuts. And why is that? Well, it is because people have more of their own money in their pocket. And what do they do with that money? They save it so that it can be invested, or they spend it so that this increases the economy and the economy booms. And that is what has happened. So when you decrease taxes, appropriately, fairly, judiciously, the truth is that what the Federal Government receives is an increase in tax revenue. So when you hear these folks talk about their plan, their plan to save this or their plan to save that, and most often you won't have them tell you exactly what they are going to do. One of them slipped out yesterday. I was listening to him on the floor. And he said, quote, we will have to, quote, raise revenue somewhere else, unquote. Raise revenue somewhere else. Now, what does that mean? What does raising revenue somewhere else mean to folks on the other side? Well, you know what it means, Mr. Speaker. It means raising taxes. It means raising taxes. We have a wonderful opportunity in this Congress to make certain that the tax decreases, the fair tax decreases of this administration and the United States House of Representatives and Senate, that they adopted ought to be made permanent, especially the death tax, the inheritance tax which is so destructive to small businesses and to families all across this Nation. They ought to be made permanent.

And one final poster on revenue and on tax growth, because it projects out to 2011. And that is that as long as the tax decreases, the fair tax decreases are continued, what happens over the next 5 years is that the Federal revenue stream continues to increase. Now, again, I know that seems counterintuitive. That seems like it doesn't make sense. If you decrease fairly the tax liability of individuals all across this Nation, you might think, well, then the revenue coming into the Federal Government is not going to be as much. But in fact what happens is that the revenue to the Federal Government increases significantly. And it increases because when you put more money in the back pockets of men and women across this Nation, what happens is that they save it and they invest it and they spend it when they want to, and what that means is that you get significant economic growth.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have gone a little longer than I had anticipated on the

issue of the economy, but I think it is incredibly important because, as a Member of the Official Truth Squad, what we are interested in doing is bringing truth to issues, all issues, economic issues and an issue of national security that we are going to talk about tonight because when you think about it, the issue of truth and national security, probably nothing could be more important in terms of talking about truth when you are talking about national security.

I mentioned that I am a physician, and if I am taking care of a patient, if I do not have truthful information from that patient, I cannot reach the right diagnosis. I cannot make the right diagnosis. And if I cannot make the right diagnosis, then I cannot treat the right disease. And if I cannot treat the right disease, then the patient does not get well.

And the same is true for our national policy. If we are not talking truthfully about the issue, if we are not openly and honestly discussing the issue, then we cannot make the right diagnosis. We cannot figure out what the right problem is. And if we cannot figure out what the right problem is, then we cannot propose the right solution. And if we cannot propose the right solution, then never on the face of the Earth in this body will the right solution come about. It just does not happen by happenstance. So truth is so incredibly important when you talk about national security because the consequences of not talking about the truth in the area of national security are probably greater than anything else. Our obligation as Members of Congress and Federal representatives is to make certain that we protect our citizens, that we protect our Nation.

And so we would like to talk a little bit this evening, as the Official Truth Squad, about national security. One of those areas of national security is border security. It has gotten a lot of attention the past couple of weeks and certainly coming to a head this week as the Senate addresses the issue of illegal immigration. But I am one of those who join my colleagues in believing that if our border is not secure, then our Nation is not secure. And so I am pleased to be joined tonight by a number of colleagues.

First, I would like to welcome and introduce Congresswoman Thelma Drake from the great State of Virginia. Congresswoman Drake is a member of the Official Truth Squad and a member of the freshman class and just a great individual who recognizes and appreciates the importance of national security, who has done yeoman's work in the area of assisting our armed services, Armed Forces, and is going to talk a little bit tonight about border security.

So, Congresswoman Drake, I thank you so much for coming and look forward to your comments.

Thank you, Congresswoman Drake, very much. You have just really clarified and crystalized the components of our immigration bill that we passed last December.

And I know that some of us have shared our frustration with the folks at home because there was really little attention paid to what the House did, very responsibly what the House did last December. Recognizing the incredible challenges that we have with immigration reform, working extremely hard to come up with a bill that addressed border security and interior enforcement. I guess if we were to be faulted for anything is that we did it during the Christmas holiday and it kind of got drowned out. But it is an important bill. It is an important bill. And I thank you for talking about the points in it that I think are vital and imperative as we move forward.

As we talk about the issue of border security and national security, the two are really closely linked, very closely linked, and it is a real challenge for America to move forward with immigration reform and border security. And one of the reasons that I believe it is such a challenge is that we essentially have had in our Nation over the last really 20 or 30 years a policy as it relates to illegal immigration of benign neglect. That is what our policy has been, and I am disappointed that that is the case. But as somebody once said, you play with the cards that you are dealt. And, in fact, the cards that we are dealt right now are a system that has been really neglected for a long, long period of time. So I am so pleased with the work that the House has done and will continue to do in trying to fashion the most responsible border security and immigration reform policy that we can.

Again, I think it is important that you make certain that we talk about truth. What is the truth? Where are we now that has put us in this challenging situation and in literally this crisis? And the issue is that we have between 12 and 20 million people here who are here illegally. And Congresswoman Blackburn has so often mentioned that she believes that it is not appropriate to call it illegal immigration, that it is illegal entry. She uses the wonderful analogy of if somebody were to enter your home illegally, you would not open your arms to welcome them. What you would do is take care of it. You would call on the authorities and ask them for help. And what has happened over the last 20 or 30 years is that when the States and localities have called on the authorities, the Federal Government, to come help, they have been left wanting. And that really is a shame. That is the benign neglect that I talk about. But comprehensive immigration reform has to, it must, begin with securing our borders. If you do anything else without securing the borders, it does not make any difference.

The porosity of our borders makes it so that is imperative, and the national security, as I mentioned, depends on border security. We need to know who is coming into the country. We need to know where they are from, and we need to know what they are doing here.

No immigration, no reform of the immigration system will be successful unless Congress makes the definitive commitment, has the willpower to make the commitment to ensure that the agencies that are responsible for stopping illegal immigrants have the resources that they need to get the job done. That just makes sense.

Without properly securing our borders, we remain vulnerable. I don't think anybody would deny that we remain vulnerable to those who may want to enter our country undetected and do us harm. We must ensure that our Border Patrol agents have the resources and the manpower and the technology to do their jobs.

I understand, and all of us understand, that America is a nation of immigrants. We are all here by virtue of somebody coming here from somewhere else at some point that allowed us the wonder and the glory and the good fortune and the blessing of being born or allowed to be a citizen of the United States of America.

We are also a nation of laws. We are a nation of laws, and I think it is extremely important that we appreciate that indeed America has been built on the hard work and the innovation of immigrants, without a doubt, and our country thrives on new ideas, and fresh energy that so many of our legal immigrant groups continue to bring. It is part of what makes our country great without a doubt.

We will remain a nation of immigrants, regardless of what we do in this legislation, because the number of legal immigrants that we welcome to our shores every year is significant. We invited over 1 million new permanent immigrants last year, much more than any other nation on the face of the earth. We accept over 6 million applications, 6 million applications, Mr. Speaker, for immigration and immigration benefits each year.

But America, again, has been founded on the principle and the respect for the rule of law. Those who enter our country illegally disrespect those laws, and they take advantage of a very generous immigration system and a very generous society.

We have got to find a comprehensive solution, a comprehensive solution that acknowledges the important contributions of legal immigrants and what they do to make our country great without rewarding illegal behavior. It is imperative that we remove that magnet of illegal employment and enable employers to be able to determine whether their workers are legal or illegal.

I think it is important when we talk about the employer verification aspect of the bill that we passed, and of any reform mechanism, that we make certain that we communicate to our employer community that we are not asking them to be policemen; and that the Federal Government's responsibility is to make certain that they are able to access real information in real time to be able to determine whether an employee that is coming to their place of work and asking to be hired, whether or not that individual is here legally. They need to be able to determine that then and now so that they can go ahead with the plan to either hire them or not based upon their qualifications, and not have to delay things because the Federal Government doesn't have accurate information.

I am pleased with the work that the House has done. This is a work in progress. The Senate is acting and will act, and then we will move forward with a conference committee, a group of the House and Members of the House and Members of the Senate to come up with a final product that hopefully we all can stand and be proud of and that will address a true crisis and a true challenge that we have in this Nation and end this policy of benign neglect that we have had for so many years.

Again, the issue we are talking about this evening on the Official Truth Squad is national security. I am pleased to be joined again tonight by Congresswoman Virginia Foxx. Congresswoman Foxx is from the grand

State of North Carolina, a dear friend and fellow member of the freshman class who is committed, committed, to making certain that truthful comments are made from the well, and that those things that are made, those comments that are made in the House that are not truthful are corrected.

I am pleased to have Congresswoman Foxx join me this evening to discuss the issue of national security. I welcome you, and I look forward to your comments this evening.

Thank you so much, Representative Foxx. You are always so cogent and accurate in what you say. And you do the Official Truth Squad proud by bringing forward the information that is so important for citizens all across this country in order for them to be able to make appropriate decisions and realize what kind of work is being done here in Washington, positive work, positive work on behalf of the American people.

That is what the Official Truth Squad is all about. It is all about making certain that the accurate information, honest information for the entire Nation is being presented at some point on the floor of the House because oftentimes what we hear is not that kind of information. So I cannot thank you enough for coming and joining me this evening really, again, in a discussion about national security that is so extremely important; and it is important because nothing is more basic to our ability as a Nation and each of our ability as individuals to realize our own dream.

If we are not secure, if we cannot maintain our liberty and our freedom, then nothing else matters. Then what kind of job you have, where you work, what you want to do with your family, where you want to live, all those kind of wonderful things that all of us as Americans think about, dream about and work so hard for won't make any difference if we do not have the kind of security that we need.

I appreciate also you taking it in a little bit of a different direction because I think it is important that we talk about what the other side has proposed because it is important that they have stated they have given the talk, it is important to look at how they are walking and how they have walked. I also think it is important to shed light on the truth of where we stand as a Nation in this world and how grave and significant the enemy is because some people will tell you, well, there really is not an enemy out there. That if we just gather round and kind of huddle down that there will not be any problem with anybody else on the face of the Earth, that the people will just leave us alone.

Well, in fact, I think that if we truly and honestly look at the situation and if we reflect over the last 25 or so years we will appreciate that we have been in this war on terror for a much longer period of time than any of us might have admitted just a few short years ago. And in order to bring light to that, in order to provide some truth to that, I thought I would repeat something that I mentioned last evening. It is a very sobering list. It is a list of events that I think are extremely important to reflect upon because I think they put in perspective how we as a Nation are being challenged and that allows us to respond in a much more appropriate way.

So as a matter of truth I proposed, Mr. Speaker, to just kind of outline and list a number of events that have occurred over the last 25 years beginning as many of us will remember in November of 1979 when the embassy, our embassy in Tehran was seized and there began that 444- day long hostage crisis that I think was kind of the beginning of this litany of events that occurred.

In April 1983 there was the bombing of our embassy in Beirut, 63 Americans killed. In October of 1983, the bombing of our U.S. Marine Corps Headquarters in Beirut, 241 killed. In December 1983, a truck loaded with explosives driven into our embassy in Kuwait. In September 1984 another violation of our embassy in Beirut. In August 1985 the bombing of the United States Air Force Base in Rhein-Main, 22 killed. In October 1985, the Achille Lauro was highjacked and an American invalid in a wheelchair was killed. April 1986, Madrid bombing of a restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers. April 1988, TWA flight 840 was bombed killing four. Again, in 1988 Pan Am flight 103 bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 259.

January 1993, two CIA agents shot and killed as they entered CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. February 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killing six and injuring over a thousand. November 1995, car bomb explodes at a U.S. military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven servicemen and women. June 1996, a truck bomb in Dhahran destroys the Khobar Towers, a United States Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. And then two coordinated attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing 224. October 2000 the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen. And then on September 11, 2001 the second World Trade Center attack killing 3,000 of our fellow citizens, innocent all.

I think it is important to talk about that because that is the truth. That is the truth of where we sit as a Nation right now. And some will say, well, that was the end of it September 11, 2001. Well, the truth is that that was not the end and is not the end. And I cannot think of anything better to crystallize that and to explain that and to bring it to light than to quote an avowed enemy of the United States, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who said in January 2005, ``We have declared a fierce war on this evil principal of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology.''

That is not anything we made up, Mr. Speaker. That is our enemy. That is an individual who designs day in and day out to do us harm, to hurt America and to hurt Americans. And so when we talk about things as grave and as important as that, I think it is incredibly important that we talk about what the plan is for each party, who is in charge, who is making the policy and what is the plan.

So as our friends on the other side on the aisle today unfolded their national security policy that they would propose, and it is an appropriate policy, the problem is that it reminds me of that wonderful country and western song that is out there right now, what we need is ``A little less talk and a lot more action.'' And the talk that they have brought to the table is mostly appropriate; but the action that we have seen from our friends on the other side of the aisle just does not ring true. It does not ring true.

They call for eliminating terrorist breeding grounds, but in fact what they ignore is that Iraq is the central front in the war or terror and a breeding ground for terrorists. What do they say? Their security agenda supports our troops in Afghanistan. What do they do? When given the opportunity a majority of House Democrats voted against funding the troops in combat in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Their security agenda says they will stop the spread of terrorists. But what do they do? They oppose the terrorists surveillance program.

Another thing that they talk about is proposing an anti-terrorism plan that increases human intelligence capability, eliminates terrorist breeding grounds, secures loose nuclear materials and stops nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea. What do they do when given the opportunity? They voted repeatedly to slash funding for intelligence activities and they vote no on expressing support for those who work in the intelligence community.

Mr. Speaker, this is the truth. This is the truth. This is what happened. When given the opportunity to say we as a sense of Congress support the men and women who are risking their lives and working in the intelligence community to make sure that you and I are safe what do they do? They vote no. If anybody is interested in looking it up it is Roll Call number 293. The vote was on June 23, 2004.

That is what the Official Truth Squad is about to call people to task, to say this is what the truth is. You can say anything you like on the floor of the House of Representatives. We have certainly recognized that. But it is important that you are held to account that you are held responsible for your actions. You what do they say? They say it calls for a stronger homeland security by implementing all recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. What do they do? They vote against the REAL ID Act which makes it difficult for terrorists to travel freely

throughout the United States, and they vote no on additional funds to respond to the attacks of September 11 and to bolster the homeland security efforts. Roll Call vote number 31 in February of last year. Roll Call vote number 206 in May of 2002.

Mr. Speaker, that is the truth. That is the truth. So you can talk the talk but you have got to be able to walk the walk. You can say one thing but you have got to be able to do it. And I think it is important for the House of Representatives to understand and appreciate and for the American people to understand and appreciate that there is a track record. There is a track record of a group of individuals who are in the leadership and forming the policy in the United States House of Representatives now that supports our intelligence community. It is vital work, incredibly important work.

Then there is a group of individuals who say that they support the intelligence community but when given the opportunity to provide the resources for them to work and when given the opportunity just to say we thank you and support what you are doing as a matter of principle they could not even do that.

What do they say? Again, they say they will support the recommendations and work for implementing the recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission, a bipartisan commission. What do they do when they get the opportunity? They vote no on establishing the Department of Homeland Security. Roll Call number 367, July, 2002. They vote no on $21 billion in funding for strengthening the border protections. Roll Call number 373, July 2004.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an incredible privilege and an honor to serve in the United States House of Representatives. I am humbled every time I walk in this building. I get goose bumps looking up at the dome.

The men and women who have preceded us in this chamber and in this body have been many incredible men and women who have donated the better part of their lives toward making certain that we as a society and we as a Nation will survive. They did so by talking about real things, by talking about honest things, by talking about truthful things, by working together with other individuals all across this body. And I challenge Members on both sides on the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, to work together, to come together as a body and work for our national security and work positively.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 43 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 30, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, when enrollment began for the new Medicare prescription drug plan last November, most American people heard only about what was wrong with the program. Now, after 3 months in the new program, have you heard the good news?

Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that more than 27 million individuals are now receiving prescription benefits under the plan, when before they received none, 1.9 million new folks just in the last month alone.

As more seniors sign up, they are seeing the benefits of the new program. A recent report of the New York Times included comments from individuals who have signed up and seen their prescription drug costs drop dramatically.

One woman saw her monthly costs drop from $476 to $100 a month. A February HHS report announced that the average premium had fallen from an estimate of $37 per month to $25 per month in actual cost.

As this plan moves forward, Congress must make sure that flexibility exists to respond to patient needs. We should also share the good news because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Conference for allowing me to join some of my friends and colleagues this evening and talk about some issues that we have heard a little bit about so far this evening and talk about some other matters as they relate to national security.

I want to introduce the Official Truth Squad. We are back again this evening. People are getting great response all across my district at home about the Official Truth Squad, because people say, isn't it wonderful that finally somebody is talking about the truth. And the gentleman before, just before, talked about the truth and we will show some truth tonight. I urge my colleagues on the other side on the aisle to stick around and look at the real numbers, look at the real numbers.

The Official Truth Squad began with a group of freshman Congressmen. We would meet and have met almost every week since the beginning of last year. And as we began to appreciate and understand how the Congress worked and what kind of issues were being addressed and how they were being addressed on the floor of the House, it became apparent to us that there were a lot of accusations that were flying across and there was a lot of misinformation and disinformation.

And our friends on the other side of the aisle oftentimes utilize what I call ``the politics of division,'' and that is, they split America. They split people into groups and they try to get people to fight, to be angry with each other. And we do not believe that that is the best way to solve problems.

We believe that, together, the challenges that we have, they are not Republican challenges, they are not Democrat challenges; they are American challenges. We believe that together we are able to best solve the challenges that face us. So we formed the Official Truth Squad to try to bring truly some facts, some truth, about the issues that you hear talked about on the floor of the House and elsewhere. We are also frustrated by somewhat of a lack of civility in Washington, so our desire is to try to raise the level of the rhetoric a little bit and stay away from the partisan and personal sniping that seems to go on.

In fact, when we talk about the truth I am fond of the utilizing a quote that many folks know and that is from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a fine United States Senator, a former Senator from the great State of New York. He said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and not their own facts.

I think that is important to talk about because you have just heard a lot of discussion about a balanced budget amendment and about PAYGO, paying as you go for the Federal Government. And you get the sense that the folks who just present that material hadn't ever had an opportunity to vote on any of those things; that those things had never come up before the Congress, right, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of sense I got as I was sitting there listening to him. I said they must have not ever had an opportunity to vote on those things.

But in fact, they have, each of the items that they discussed, four separate times in the 1990s. There was a great opportunity to vote on a balanced budget amendment. The majority of the individuals on the other side of the aisle, the majority, in fact, the majority of the folks who were Blue Dogs here voted against a balanced budget amendment, most recently in 2004. And I know it is the truth because you can look it up; it is Roll Call Vote number 311, 311 in 2004. It was about a budget resolution that would make the amount of money that is appropriated binding so that you cannot go above that amount in the Federal Government's spending.

What was the vote then? One hundred eighty-one Democrats voted no. Now, that is the truth. So when you talk about trying to paint the picture of budget responsibility and fiscal responsibility, it is important to look at how people are voting.

They talk about PAYGO, pay as you go, and that is an important thing, and we have been working on that for years. But the most recent time when they had an opportunity to vote on it in 2004, Roll Call Vote number 318, look it up, Mr. Speaker, Roll Call Vote number 318, 2004, not a single Democrat voted for the PAYGO rule. Not one. Not a single Blue Dog that voted, not a single Democrat voted in favor of the PAYGO rule.

So, Mr. Speaker, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. So I think it is important that we point out facts.

I just want to briefly, before we get into the issue of national security, which we are going to talk about tonight, I think it is important to show the American people what the facts are about some of the other issues that were discussed.

Medicaid, you heard about Medicaid cuts, right, Mr. Speaker? Well, in fact,

here is a chart from 1995 to 2005, the amount of money that the Federal Government has spent on Medicaid. And you would think if there was a cut, as it has been described by folks on the other side, that this red line, which is the amount of money that the Federal Government spends, that it will go down, right, that it would go down. In fact, every single year since 1995 through 2005, there has been an increase in the Federal money spent on Medicaid, an average increase of 7.4 percent per year.

Mr. Speaker, that is not a cut. That is an increase and it is an appropriate increase to care for those who are neediest in our society. In fact, it is an increase from $89 billion in 1995 to $181 billion in 2005.

What about the education money that is talked about, these ``cuts''? Here is the education annual growth over the past 5 years, 2000 to 2005. The average growth is at 9.1 percent, 9.1 percent.

When you talk about Pell grants, which is the amount of money that the Federal Government provides for those most needy to go to school, to go to college or university and you talk about ``cuts,'' that is what you hear, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? In fact, what we have seen over the past 5 years is an increase every single year. Those aren't cuts, Mr. Speaker. It has grown about 10.3 percent every year since 2000.

So we call ourselves the Official Truth Squad because we are interested in bringing truth to the table. Truth is the only way that we can solve the challenges that we have in our Nation right now, and truth and working together is truly the only way to solve the great challenges that we have.

Tonight, we want to address a little bit of a different issue and it is an issue that when I talk to folks at home is really one of the top issues, if not the top issue, that they talk about when they talk about what they want their Federal Government to do in terms of addressing needs that they have; and the issue is that of national security. And there are a lot of different ways that we can talk about it, and we will discuss a couple of them this evening.

I have been joined by a number of my colleagues this evening and I want to thank them for coming. First, I want to introduce Representative Blackburn, who is a wonderful colleague, not a freshman, but we have given her honorary freshman status in the Official Truth Squad. We will come here this evening to talk about national security as it relates to border security because, as most of us believe, if the border is not secure, the Nation is not secure.

I welcome you this evening and thank you for coming.

Mr. Speaker, thank you so very much. I appreciate you coming and joining us this evening, and I think that you pointed out some very important perspectives that the constituents that I have at home would agree with, I know, and that is that illegal immigration may be a misnomer because it really is illegal entry and it is important to appreciate that perspective and to understand that what we are talking about here is, as you described, protecting our home, protecting our homeland, and that illegal entry into one's home we do not allow as a Nation, and that illegal entry into our homeland ought not be allowed either.

So as you mentioned, America is indeed a Nation of immigrants, but it is a Nation of laws as well, and so a comprehensive immigration reform must begin with securing the border. I thank you very much for coming and joining us this evening.

Also coming this evening is Judge Poe, the honorable Congressman Ted Poe from Texas, member of the freshman class and an active member of the Official Truth Squad. His experience back in the State of Texas is just wonderful information and a resource that he has to give to the United States Congress and to America, and so I appreciate you coming this evening and sharing your perspective on national security.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much for participating tonight and for really sharing his firsthand knowledge and information from his background as a judge in Texas and really putting the whole issue into perspective, again, about protecting one's home, protecting one's homeland, the importance of the war on drugs, the war on terror and something that I talk about often with my constituents, and that is that our immigration policy really has been one of benign neglect for the past couple of decades, and that is why we find ourselves in the situation where we are right now, and that it just takes the will, it takes the will of leadership and the will of the Members of Congress to move us forward as it relates to illegal immigration.

I am hopeful that we will be able to do that. I am hopeful we will be able to do that in a positive way, in a way that recognizes the wonderful diversity of America and recognizes that America is a land of immigrants, without a doubt, but that also, and as importantly, it is a land of laws. We are a Nation of laws, and that is I think the important perspective that I would like to share with folks tonight as it relates to the issue of border security and illegal immigration.

I want to take a little different tack on the issue of national security. We have, as a Nation, remarkable challenges that confront us, and one does not have to let one's imagination run very wide to appreciate the challenges and the threats that we have as a Nation.

We stand truly on the shoulders of our parents and our grandparents. My parents' generation was the World War II generation. My father was a soldier in World War II, fought in the Philippines, and he and his generation have been called the Greatest Generation. Each generation has its own responsibility, there is no doubt.

When I am asked at home about the war in Iraq and how we are doing right now as a Nation, I always try to raise up and say let us talk about this in a larger picture.

Because I believe sincerely, and I know that most folks who look at this objectively believe that the war in Iraq is not really a war in Iraq, it is the battle in Iraq in the war on terror. It is a bigger issue. It truly is a bigger issue.

It is something that Frank Gaffney calls in his book ``War Footing,'' he calls it ``the war for the free world.'' That is a very sobering comment, but I think it is pertinent to talk about exactly what are the challenges and how big are the challenges that are before us as a nation.

I had recently the opportunity to meet with and to speak to a group of constituents who are members of Employers United for a Stronger America. This is a group of employers who actively support the Guard and the Reserve in our Nation. They do so in incredible ways: by assisting families, in helping when they have employees who are members of the National Guard or Reserve and they are called up to active duty. They help families, they help communities, they help the children, they assist in college education and in all sorts of wonderful ways, keeping the employee's salary going. Really remarkable.

And I was very interested to find out greater information about the Guard and Reserve. I know that some of my colleagues know this, but I wasn't fully aware of the incredible commitment that the Guard and Reserve are currently making. Since the inception of the National Guard and Reserves, there were only two call-ups in World War II and Korea until 9/11. And since 9/11 there have been five call-ups to active duty of members of the Guard and Reserve.

More than 200,000 Guard and Reserve troops have been called up for both the battle in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The number on active duty now is about 120,000, and over 450 companies have joined and participated in this Employers United for a Stronger America, and I think that they demonstrate that this is a larger issue. Our Nation's security is a larger issue than just that responsibility that is held by the troops and by the military.

One of my main concerns about national security, and I suspect others have a similar perspective, but it is what I call the ``Vietnam syndrome.'' It is the sense that with the conflict and the war in Vietnam that we became tired and frustrated as a nation with that battle and with that war, and that that has somehow shaded how we have reacted to the acts in the war on terror since then.

And I say that because I want to remind folks of the Official Truth Squad quote that we cite so often, and that is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts. And I want to cite some fairly sobering facts tonight and I think it puts the whole issue into perspective about national security.

What I would like to do is just list items that have been truly acts in the war on terror, because it didn't begin with September 11. You know that, Mr. Speaker. Everybody can appreciate that. Really, September 11 was but one in a series of acts against our Nation and freedom.

Many folks will cite that the war on terror began in November of 1979, when there was the seizure of our embassy in Tehran and the incredibly long and arduous ordeal of the 444-day-long hostage crisis that so many of us remember vividly.

Then, in April 1983, the bombing of our embassy in Beirut with 63 Americans killed. In October 1983, the bombing of our U.S. Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut, with 241 killed.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, these are facts. These aren't opinion.

December 1983, a truck loaded with explosives was driven into our embassy in Kuwait. September 1984, there was another violation of our embassy in Beirut.

April 1986, the Madrid bombing of a restaurant that was frequented by United States soldiers. August 1985, the bombing of the United States Air Force Base in Rhein-Main killing 22. October 1985, the Achille Laurel hijacking, where an American invalid in a wheelchair was executed.

April 1988, TWA Flight 840 was bombed, killing four. In 1988 again, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 259. January 1993, two CIA agents were shot and killed as they entered CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

Again, Mr. Speaker, facts. Facts, not opinions.

In February 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing with six killed and over 1,000 injured. November 1995, a car bomb explodes at a U.S. military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing seven servicemen and women. June 1996, truck bomb in Dhahran destroys the Khobar Towers, a United States Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500.

Facts, Mr. Speaker, not opinion.

Two coordinated attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya in Tanzania, killing 224. October 2000, the U.S.S. Cole attack in Yemen. And then September 11, 2001, the attack, second attack, on the World Trade Center, with over 3,000 Americans killed.

And we wonder whether they are done.

Well, you don't have to go far to get, again, Mr. Speaker, more facts about the remarkable threat to our Nation's security. This is a quote just a little over a year ago from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in January 2005, very recent, in which he said, ``We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology.''

So I think it is very telling, Mr. Speaker, to appreciate that the challenges that we have as a nation are not minor challenges. They are remarkably significant and they have been going on not just since 2001, they have been going on for years and years and years. And it is imperative that we as a society and that we as a Congress recognize the challenges and the threats that are posed before us.

I am pleased now to yield to one of my good friends and fellow freshmen, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx from the great State of North Carolina. She has been a wonderful participant and active member of the Official Truth Squad. She always has a great perspective. She has a history as an educator and comes with wonderful experience and great perspective, especially in this area, the area of national security and national responsibility as it relates to national security, and I yield to her such time as she may consume.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's participation as part of the Official Truth Squad in trying to bring some reality and facts to the debate about whatever issue it is we are discussing, and this evening obviously it is about national security. You really put things in an appropriate perspective I think when you stated that oftentimes we tend to get clouded about what the Federal Government's real responsibility is. What is their fundamental responsibility? What is our fundamental responsibility? It is clearly laid out and that is the security and defense of our Nation. If we do not do that, nothing else matters that we do here.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for her participation in the Official Truth Squad tonight and appreciate your very cogent discussion about national security and about the importance of having folks work together in a positive and really uplifting way for America, not in a negative and spiteful and divisive way. We believe strongly that, again, these challenges are not Republican challenges, they are not Democrat challenges, they are America's challenges, and that is where we need to focus.

Right before Ms. Foxx discussed national security, I went through a list of events that had occurred since November of 1979, since the taking of hostages in Tehran at our embassy and that 444-day-long hostage crisis. There have been easily 15 to 20 specific factual events that have occurred, that when taken in their entirety clearly show that this war on terror, or what Frank Gaffney calls the war for the free world, has been ongoing for a longer period of time than most of us would admit to ourselves or to our colleagues. But it is true. It is true and it has not gone away.

Folks who say you do not need to worry about that, you just need to temporize things, that really the issue is not one that is that serious, that we do not need to address it in a head-on manner, I would draw your attention to this quote again from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in January of 2005, and if this is not a chilling quote, I do not know what is. If this does not get your attention as a Member of Congress and as an American, I do not know what will: ``We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology.''

Madam Speaker, I think that means us. I think that means America; and any response that does not recognize the gravity of that situation is, I think, irresponsible.

So when we gather as Members of Congress and we talk about the issues that are before us as they relate to national security, you cannot overestimate them. You cannot overestimate them. It is as fundamental as democracy itself, as clearly stated by our avowed enemy. He has defined himself as such.

There has been a lot of discussion this past week or so about Zacarias Moussaoui who is having his sentencing phase of his trial. This is the gentleman arrested in August of 2001 on immigration charges. He aroused suspicion. He was at a Minnesota flight school, and he presented himself to that flight school and said he wanted to learn to fly a Boeing 747. And thank goodness that somebody recognized this request as something that was a little out of the ordinary and he was arrested.

It turns out that he ultimately pled guilty to all six charges. He pled guilty in April 2005 to charges of conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism beyond national boundaries, to commit aircraft piracy, to destroying aircraft. That is what he pled guilty to. Again, facts not opinions. Conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, conspiracy to murder United States employees, and conspiracy to destroy property of the United States, and some people would minimize his involvement and say that is not really all that important, he probably didn't have that much to do with it.

Just this week, Mr. Zacarias Moussaoui claimed, proudly claimed, that he and shoe bomber Richard Reid were going to be the hijackers on a fifth plane on September 11 and planned to fly it into the White House. Thank goodness they were not successful in that endeavor.

Madam Speaker, I cannot tell you how proud I am of the men and women who defend our Nation. I cannot tell you how proud I am of the men and women who stand up in this body and in this Congress and provide those individuals the resources that they need to be able to defend our homeland, to make certain that we are indeed secure as a Nation.

I know that most of us get asked to visit school groups and scout groups, Boy Scout and Girl Scout groups, to talk about government and Congress. I enjoy those visits for many reasons, not the least of which is the vitality and enthusiasm of the young people is infectious. And their enthusiasm for America is infectious as well. Oftentimes I review basic American history and then talk about the type of government we have and whether our Nation will exist forever.

It is interesting the response that I get as I talk with young people because it is a question that many have not thought about or comprehended. When you ask them, they say, sure, America will exist, it will always exist because there is a sense that in spite of the problems and the challenges that we have, that we as a Nation, and in spite of our disagreements about policies that we have, we as a Nation will indeed survive forever. There is this general sense that it is the destiny of the

United States and its continuation as a representative democracy is just a given, that we are guaranteed to exist forever, kind of just because.

Madam Speaker, you and I both know all too well that simply is not an absolute. It takes constant vigilance. It takes the action of those individuals in Congress as well as men and women across this Nation to be constantly on alert and make certain that we constantly are giving back to our Nation.

It is certainly my hope and prayer that we continue to flourish so we in future generations will have the opportunity to live freely and to meet the challenges that allow all of us to reach our greatest dreams.

Madam Speaker, I know I believe in the wonderful goodness of our Nation. I believe in its wonder and its beauty and its awesome promise. But as you also know, Madam Speaker, I know that liberty and freedom and our Nation require constant vigilance and support. We truly are a wonderful and a glorious Nation, and we remain a beacon of light and a vessel of hope and freedom to men and women around the world. I think it is incredibly important that we appreciate that September 11 was simply the culmination of over 20 years of specific events, and that there are savages on the Earth who have admitted that they will go to incredible lengths, including their own death, in order to destroy our way of life. It is that kind of enemy, it is that kind of world that requires a different vigilance than we have known.

Each generation has its duty. Each individual has his or her role to play. We all know that freedom is not free and each of us has to sacrifice and each of us has a price to pay for the liberty and the freedom that we so enjoy.

Madam Speaker, it has been my privilege to come and present the Official Truth Squad perspective on national security this evening and to try to raise the level of the rhetoric here in the House Chamber, to try not to be divisive, to ask my colleagues to recognize, both Republican and Democrat, that we are all in this together, that the challenges that we have are not partisan challenges, the challenges we have are American challenges. And when we work better together, we are able to solve those challenges that much more easily.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the members of the conference once again for allowing me the opportunity to present this hour this evening. I want to thank each of my colleagues for joining me this evening.

God bless America and may God continue to richly bless our great Nation and the men and women who protect us.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come before the House this evening and appreciate the leadership granting me the opportunity to share a few words with the Speaker and with the House.

I know it is late. We just have five more minutes this evening in our House session, but I am here to represent the Official Truth Squad. And the Official Truth Squad, as so many folks know, was begun by a group of freshmen Republicans. Having been in Congress now for about 15 months, and throughout the last year, we had talked with each other and with others in Congress about why is it that you so often hear so much misinformation and disinformation on the floor of the House. And so we thought what we would do as a group is to get together and begin the Official Truth Squad.

And I know it is late, Madam Speaker, and I was going to give folks a break and not take the remaining 5 minutes of the evening, but I was sitting over in my office and I was listening to the previous presentation by some well-meaning folks on the other side of the aisle, and they talked about this, the need for accountability in the budgeting process. And I know that my colleagues and I couldn't agree more. We couldn't agree more.

What I would like to do in this very brief time that we have, though, is to bring a little truth to the debate, and that is the issue of the balanced budget amendment. We, so many of us, support a balanced budget amendment. We agree that there ought to be appropriate accountability. I believe that the desire or the inertia to restrain spending at the Federal level is, frankly, nonexistent. So I think that it is imperative that we have some kind of control on the amount of spending that we have here in Washington. And one way to do that, and I believe an appropriate way to do that, is through a balanced budget amendment.

We just heard within the past hour some folks on the other side who say, yeah, we think there ought to be a balanced budget amendment. But what's the truth about their actions when given the opportunity? And that is what the Official Truth Squad is about, is to make certain that folks are held accountable for not just talking the talk, but walking the walk.

Here is the most recent opportunity that Congress has had to vote on a balanced budget amendment. Now, this was an actual vote in 1997 on a balanced budget amendment. And how did the other side vote? Well, 8 individuals on the other side said, yeah, that is an appropriate thing to do; we believe that that is the kind of budget accountability that we need: 194 was the ``no'' vote on the other side. 194.

And, Madam Speaker, I might mention that it included a majority of the folks who call themselves Blue Dog Democrats. And I don't do this to point fingers, but I do do it to say that when you are talking about issues, it is important to speak the truth and to allow and have your vote follow your speech.

The Official Truth Squad, we have some, a number of mottos, and a number of quotes that we enjoy. One of the quotes that we enjoy and appreciate is that of the former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said oftentimes that you are welcome to your own opinion, but you are not welcome to your own facts. And, Madam Speaker, this is a fact. And this is a fact that speaks louder than anything I could ever, ever say which says that when given the opportunity for budget accountability, that the vast majority of individuals on the other side of the aisle said, no, we really don't want to do that. We say we want to do that, but in fact we really don't want to do that.

So I am pleased to come before the House this evening, Madam Speaker. I look forward to coming back tomorrow. We will be back tomorrow to shed some more light on some economic good news with the American people and to bring that truth, those pearls of truth that are so incredibly important as we talk about the remarkable challenges that confront us as a Nation, not Republican challenges, not Democrat challenges, but American challenges that we all need to solve together.

Mr. Speaker, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has released a report that details what most of us already knew, that health care costs are rising and they are rising at an increasing rate.

The bureaucrats and the Members of Congress talk about SGR, they talk about pay-for-performance, and they talk about CPT codes. What is left out of the discussion is that which is most important, and that is the patient.

As a physician for over 25 years, I know that the current health care road we are on continues to move us in the wrong direction. A patient- centered system is necessary if we are to increase access to quality care.

I ask my colleagues here in this Chamber to take a bipartisan approach to solving this issue: look at the numbers; read the reports; and, above all, listen to the American people. They are the families and the small businesses and the employers who are trying to provide health care coverage.

America has the ingenuity, but we must also have the will to make the decisions necessary to get us on the right road in health care.

Madam Speaker, when I look at the current state of our border security, I join my constituents in their concern. Violence at the U.S.-Mexico border is at an all-time high, going on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

We have read in the news about a shoot-out on the border between U.S. law enforcement and a gang of drug smugglers, some of whom were dressed in Mexican military uniforms. Amazingly, several weeks ago we discovered a tunnel 2,400 feet long going under the border. Inside that tunnel were found 2 tons of illegal drugs. These are just a few examples of a flawed and broken immigration policy.

The House has taken an important first step with its passage of H.R. 4437, but this is just the first step. In the weeks and months to come, I call on my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, Members of the House and Senate, to listen to their constituents, listen to the American people, listen to the law enforcement agents and the Border Patrol agents. We are all on the front lines of this issue, and we all share the responsibility. Every day of inaction is a day we can't afford.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the House tonight. I want to thank the leadership for allowing me to participate in this hour. I thank the conference chair, Congresswoman Pryce, for her leadership.

And I want to come tonight with a number of colleagues, and we come with what we call the Official Truth Squad. And we call it that because a group of freshman Congressmen, in our class there are 25 or so freshman Congressman, who have now served in Congress for about 15 months, and when we get together on a regular basis, one of the overarching concerns that we voice to each other over and over and over

again was the tone in Washington and the remarkable partisanship in Washington. And we kind of brainstormed about what could we do to change that tone, to make a difference.

And so we came up with the Official Truth Squad. And we try to come every evening and share with the American people what we believe to be the truthful situation on whatever the topic is.

This instance tonight we are going to talk a little bit about the economy in just a short time. But I think what you have heard, Mr. Speaker, over the last hour, and much of it veiled in some very kind words, but what you have heard is a clear example of the politics of division. And it is the politics of division that many of our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be wedded to, and I cannot tell you why that is.

It disturbs me. It is very distressing, because I think that it does not serve the greater purpose of why we are all here, why we are all elected to Congress, to try to solve the remarkable challenges that we have.

But the politics of division is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is pitting one group against another in some really political way that really does not make a whole lot of sense. But it is appealing to people's lowest common denominator. It is appealing to their fears and to their basic instinct, and that, again, does a great disservice to us as a Nation.

I have quoted on this floor before something that I have attributed to President Abraham Lincoln. And I was so pleased that there are folks who are out there and interested in what we are talking about. And I stand corrected on that. It was felt to be consistent with President Lincoln's philosophy, but, in fact, it is attributable to Reverend William Boetcker, who was a leader and a public speaker in America born in 1873, died in 1962.

He talked about the politics of division. He talked about it a lot. He talked about the need for appropriate discourse and a social philosophy that he felt was consistent with President Lincoln's, and it has been confused with that in the past.

So I wish to share that with you again tonight, Mr. Speaker, because I think it really crystallizes what we ought not do here in the people's House because it does a disservice. And the quote goes like this:

``You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot encourage the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could do for themselves.''

And I may add another one tonight: that you cannot empower women by tearing down men.

So the politics of division do truly a disservice to us as a Nation. It is disheartening to the public discourse, frankly. So I urge my colleagues to try to endeavor as we are talking about issues and the challenges that confront us to remember that truth is important and truth is vital in everything that we do.

In my real job I was a physician. I was an orthopedic surgeon. And I am fond of telling folks that if I did not get truthful information either from the patient or from whatever laboratory study or examination we were doing, if we did not get truthful information, then we could not make the right diagnosis. If you do not make the right diagnosis, then you cannot treat the right disease. And if you do not treat the right disease, it is hard to get the patient cured.

It is the same in public policy. If you are not dealing in truth, if you are not making the right diagnosis, if you are not treating the right disease, you cannot get to the right solution. So, again, I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to try as hard as they can to avoid the politics of division. It really is shameful and it does a disservice to the public debate, and it really does not do any credit to the party itself.

So I am pleased to be able to have the opportunity tonight to come and talk about many different things, but we are going to talk about the economy for a good length of time here this evening.

I have been joined by a good friend and colleague, a member of the freshman class, Congressman Westmoreland, a fellow Georgian. Congressman Westmoreland is a small businessman and a fellow Georgian. I served in the State legislature with him. He has come to share some of that truthful information about the economy.

Congressman Westmoreland, I welcome you and thank you for joining us tonight.

I appreciate you pointing that out. I am sorry, I had this a little bit later, but this is the chart that you refer to.

It really is amazing when people hear this because it is kind of counterintuitive. If you decrease taxes then people say, well, surely you decrease money coming into the government. But it does not work that way, does it? And what we see here is exactly what you described.

You decrease this line right here. This is the years down here, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003. This line is when the tax decreases, the tax cuts, went into effect; and the red line is the revenue into the United States Treasury.

I came up with another chart that highlighted exactly what you said because so often, as we have talked about on the Official Truth Squad, we get one word out of one side of a person's mouth and what they do when they actually vote is something completely different.

You mentioned about the balanced budget amendment and the opportunities that our friends on the other side of the aisle have had to support a balanced budget amendment and, in fact, their deed has not matched their word. They talk a good game, they really do. They talk about supporting a balanced budget amendment. But here are votes that were taken in 1990; 145 Democrats voted no on a balanced budget amendment; 1992, 150 vote no; 1994, 151 vote no; 1995, 129 vote no. And the most recent time they had an opportunity to do that, 1997, 8 Democrats voted yes, 194 voted against calling for a balanced budget amendment.

Thanks for your participation, and your words tonight really were right to the point.

We are fond of saying in the Official Truth Squad, quoting Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who had a wonderful quote that goes, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.''

And that is what this is about, the Official Truth Squad. You know as well as anybody that this is not Washington's money. This is the people's money. And that is what is so important to get across to folks. It is the people's money. It is not Washington's money.

It is their money and they deserve to spend it as they please. Thank you so much for your participation.

We are talking about the economy tonight in the Official Truth Squad and trying to bring some light to some of the wonderful things that are happening in the economy and put statistics down where statistics ought to be and show the truth.

We are joined tonight by Congresswoman Blackburn from Tennessee. We are so pleased to have you join us again on the Official Truth Squad and share some of your perspective on the United States economy right now.

I think that is such an incredibly important point that you just made, and that is not to raise taxes.

What most of my constituents do not understand or appreciate is that Congress has to act in order for the current tax decreases, the current tax cuts, to continue, and that if we do nothing, if the other side is successful in making it so that Congress is inactive and does not do anything, then a tax increase will take effect; is that not the case?

It really does. A picture really is worth 1,000 or a million words, certainly, and this one certainly is. In fact, it is worth 4.73 million words, because every one of those 4.73 million new jobs is demonstrated on this picture here, on this graph here, from January 2002 all the way to January 2006. You see the trend that happened during this administration, during the Republican leadership and what happened when it crossed the line with tax decreases, the tax cuts you talked about.

Thank you so much for joining us this evening on this Official Truth Squad and bringing us some truthful numbers, some truthful comments, and highlighting so well the wonder of the small business community across this Nation, because the small business community really is the engine that drives the job creation in our Nation, and this is why the environment to make certain that small business, mom and pop, the corner drugstore, the corner cleaners, those folks who are just working as hard as they can, that the environment for them to be able to succeed and be able to thrive is so doggone important. That is what we are here to try to do and make certain that we continue that economic environment.

We have been joined by Congressman Mike Conaway. Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn was with us. Congressman Mike Conaway is another fellow freshman member of the Official Truth Squad and very, very helpful. He is a CPA by profession. That is exactly what we need are more CPAs in Congress who can tell us exactly what the right number ought to be, and I want to welcome Congressman Conaway and look forward to your comments this evening, the truthful comments about our economy.

Thank you so much, Congressman Conaway. You said you didn't have the flowery speech, but you do. And in addition to that flowery speech, you speak the truth. Because so oftentimes here we don't refer to that document, the Constitution, that I carry with me every single day and that highlights our principles; that is the founding document that says what our guidelines ought to be.

Where are our walls and fences? What should we be doing? We ought to hear every single day on the floor of this House, is that the responsibility of the Federal Government? We ought to be asking ourselves that on every single thing we do.

I appreciate so much, again, the gentleman's coming. Really, it is a positive picture, because what it says is that we ought to be looking at our founding document. That is a positive uplifting picture.

I guess what is one of the most distressing things about what you have said is that you described this budget that is going to be proposed as a radical budget, but it is a balanced budget. There is nothing radical about a balanced budget within a 5-year period of time, which is, as I understand it, what will be proposed. So it is not radical.

In fact, doing anything else is harmful, is not compassionate, and is probably radical because it puts us on that track for the GDP percentage being consumed by the Federal Government that you pointed to of 50 percent in the year 2050. And as you say, that is unsustainable. It means it doesn't work. Can't work.

So thank you so much for joining me tonight, and I really appreciate your perspective and your insight and your acumen that you bring from the private sector to us here in Congress.

I have talked about Senator Moynihan's wonderful quote that ``Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.'' What we try to do on the Truth Squad is to highlight some of the comments that have been made on the floor of the House of Representatives and to point out what in fact the truth is. And we have heard an awful lot, an awful lot lately about the Dubai Ports situation, the potential transfer or sale of management of six of our Nation's ports to Dubai Ports World.

And regardless of what you think about that, there are some real questions that many of us have about that. But in the context of that discussion, we have heard over and over and over again that no money has gone to port security, the money has been slashed to port security, and the Congress hasn't been responsible in what it has done with port security. So what I have done tonight is to bring two new highlights for the Official Truth Squad that talk about port security funding.

This first one highlights the funding to the six ports that are in question here as it relates to the current topic.

This chart says since September 11, 2001, Congress has authorized a 700 percent increase. That is not a cut, that is not flat, that is an increase in funding for port security, and in particular Congress has authorized the following amounts for six of the most high-risk ports: $43.7 million to the port of New York and New Jersey; $32.7 million to the port of Miami; $27.4 million to the port of New Orleans; $16.2 million to the port of Baltimore; and $15.8 million to Philadelphia, a 700 percent increase in port security since September 11, and nowhere do you see a decrease.

That is highlighted even more so on this chart here that demonstrates and

shows the port security funding in fiscal year 2001, and you see the remarkable increases we have had since September 11, 2001; fiscal year 2006 and the 2007 request is nearly $3 billion for money that would be utilized in the area of port security.

What you hear and what the truth is oftentimes are two different things. I am pleased to be able to bring this kind of information to the floor and to talk about the truth, talk about the kind of numbers that in fact we are dealing with in the House of Representatives and to try to get through a lot of partisanship, to try to get above a lot of hyperbole and misinformation that is rampant and does a disservice to the debate.

We oftentimes do not get to debate a whole lot in Congress. Like what is occurring tonight, one side presents their issues and the other side presents their issues. It goes back and forth. It really is not a debate, it is not an interchange. It is not the kind of thing that I would think of as a debate and probably most Americans would think of, but what is occurring with the Official Truth Squad coming here night after night after night is we are beginning to have some dialogue, some back and forth with our friends on the other side of the aisle, and they have made some interesting comments and I thought I should bring them to the American people.

Last night there was a group of folks in the House that call themselves the Blue Dogs, and they talked about what we do in the Truth Squad in a certain way.

They said, ``Following us this evening, I am pretty confident that the other side will show up and they will probably talk about how we had an opportunity to cut, to cut $40 billion in spending and how we, the Blue Dogs, voted against it. But what they will not tell you is it was $40 million in cuts to the most vulnerable people in our society: Medicaid, 8 out 10 seniors in Arkansas on Medicaid; 1 out of 5 people in Arkansas are on Medicaid. Cuts to Medicaid, cuts to student loans to the tune of $40 billion.''

Now that is what they said. But the Official Truth Squad is here because what we are interested in doing is looking at the real numbers. What is the truth in that? That is a pretty significant charge that was made, significant cuts in Medicaid and to education, to student loans. What is the truth? What really has Congress done?

Madam Speaker, here is the chart that puts the Medicaid situation into perspective. This chart goes from 1995 to 2005. It talks about the amount of money, the Federal outlays in billions of dollars to the Medicaid program. In fact, what this square says is that spending more than doubled over the last 10 years on Medicaid for an average growth of 7.4 percent per year. Average growth in Medicaid for the past 10 years, 7.4 percent. That may not sound like a lot, but look at the actual numbers. In 1995, $89.1 billion. In the year 2000, $208 billion. In 2005, $181.7 billion in Medicaid funding.

Now, Madam Speaker, I know that people oftentimes like to talk about a cut. As I talked about before, that is the politics of division. It does not help anybody. All it does is put fear into folks reliant on the program who oftentimes are the most vulnerable.

What we have done in the United States House of Representatives under Republican leadership is cut waste, cut fraud, worked to cut the abuse of the system, but continually increasing the amount of revenue that is going because that population, regretfully, has increased. So it is appropriate to have more money go into that area, not cuts, not cuts to the program.

What about education? They mentioned education. These cuts that they quote for education; well, in fact, it is the same kind of picture. Here we have a chart, the year 2000 all of the way up to 2005. This is the annual growth in Federal education spending over the past 5 years. The year 2000, a little under $40 billion. The year 2005, nearly $60 billion. Total education spending has grown an average of 9.1 percent per year over the past 5 years. That is certainly faster than the inflation rate. It is faster than the population in that area. It is not a cut, not a cut.

And then they talk about student loans. What is happening with student loans? We had some significant changes to student loans last year, but they were loans that put more money into the hands of the students and less money into the hands of the borrowers. Still, if we look at the actual money, this is the truth, the Official Truth Squad, Pell grant funding has grown 10.3 percent per year since the year 2000, $12.4 billion for fiscal year 2005. The graph demonstrates clearly annual growth every single year.

So, Madam Speaker, when people hear that the cuts are occurring and when they hear the discussion about the cuts as was mentioned earlier in the budget, the balanced budget within 5 years that is going to be proposed, again, it is not honest, it is not fair to the discussion. It results in this politics of division which pits one group against another, all of which is not positive for our Nation and it does not assist in the debate. It does not help us reach solutions. I encourage my colleagues to kind of rethink how they are approaching this debate.

We would love to have an open and honest discussion about these things and be able to work together to solve the problems because these are not Republican problems, these are not Democrat problems, these are American problems. They are challenges that all of us have. It works best, our system works best when we all work together to solve the challenges that we have.

Madam Speaker, we live in a wondrous and a glorious Nation. It is still a Nation where men and women around the world, they look to us with optimism, they look to us as being a beacon of liberty and a vessel of hope. They view us as being an example that they might be able to follow. I am proud to serve in the United States House of Representatives. I am proud to serve with men and women who are willing to stand up and to say how much they love America and how much they believe that the policies that we are putting forward are moving us in the right direction. I am proud to serve with those men and women who joined us this evening and talked about truth, talked about issues that are so important for the American people to understand and put a little positive perspective on the challenges that we have before us. I look forward to coming back at some point in the future.

Mr. Speaker, when I opened up my local paper the other day, I was troubled by a letter to the editor. This gentleman was lamenting the fact that he and his wife were losing a long-time doctor because the physician could not afford to remain in business. What is even more troubling is that none of this is a surprise.

Every day more and more doctors across the country are watching their malpractice rates skyrocket. These premiums are going up as the insurance companies are being forced to pay higher and higher awards for malpractice lawsuits.

Doctors need to be held accountable, yes. However, there is also a need to recognize the institutional abuse that is far too often perpetrated in our courts by personal injury lawyers and the frivolous lawsuits they introduce. These lawsuits do not just affect doctors. They are affecting patients all across the country who either lose access to their doctor altogether or are cared for by a physician who has been intimidated into practicing defensive medicine.

While everyone is talking about rising health care costs, let us not forget to recognize there are a number of different ways to lower those costs, and starting with lawsuit abuse reform would be a genuine first step.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 7, 2006, for morning hour debate.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.