[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18551-18558]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Schmidt). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to come 
back before the House as representative of the majority party. And as I 
was sitting and listening to the tail end of my good friends on the 
other side of the aisle with their recitation of doom and gloom, Madam 
Speaker, I was reminded of a radio personality who has a wonderful 
program on daily. He comes on and he introduces his program by saying, 
``And now for the rest of the story.''
  So, Madam Speaker, I come before you tonight and before the House 
with another version of the Official Truth Squad. The Official Truth 
Squad began a little over a year ago with a group of freshmen 
Republicans in the United States House of Representatives who had, 
frankly, grown tired of the lack of response to the disinformation and 
the misinformation and the distortion and the demagoguery and the 
hyperbole that we hear over and over and over on the House floor. And, 
Madam Speaker, you have been treated to a particularly virulent form of 
that kind of disinformation and misinformation in the past hour.
  Before I get into the comments that I had prepared for this evening 
to talk a little bit about national security and talk about our 
economy, I do want to point out a couple of items for those folks in 
the House who are listening and have just heard the comments on the 
floor.
  I think it is important to make certain that we talk about the truth, 
and when we talk about the truth, I am reminded of Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan's famous quote. It is one of my favorites. Senator Moynihan 
was a Democratic Senator from the State of New York, and he said that 
everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to 
their own facts. Is that not true, Madam Speaker? Everyone is entitled 
to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
  So I am here to point out just a few of the opinions that we have 
heard this evening that, in fact, bear no resemblance to the truth and 
bear no resemblance to fact, but that are so divisive to us as a 
Nation. That is what concerns me, Madam Speaker.
  My background is as a physician. I came to Congress after over 20 
years practicing medicine, and I knew that when I dealt with my 
patients and when I dealt with my colleagues, that we had to talk about 
the truth. We had to talk about real things. We had to talk about 
facts, because when you did not talk about facts, then you made the 
wrong diagnosis, and when you

[[Page 18552]]

make the wrong diagnosis, somebody gets hurt. Somebody gets hurt.
  So, Madam Speaker, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
do not want to talk about the facts, and they do not want to talk about 
the truth, then somebody gets hurt, and in this instance it is the 
American people. It may even be the American fiber and the American 
spirit, the unity of America.
  What we just heard is a remarkable demonstration of disunity, of 
division, of folks who, I do not know how long people have been 
listening, but I did not hear a single solution, not one solution 
offered.
  Churchill said that criticism is easy; it is achievement that is 
difficult. Another one of my favorite quotes. Criticism is easy, but 
achievement is difficult.
  You just heard a remarkable statement, and we have had a remarkable 
day with our President going to the United Nations and addressing the 
United Nations in his annual address. Because we are the host Nation, 
there is a defined time for that annual address, and it occurs in 
second speaking order. So it happened to occur during the middle of the 
day today. My friends on the other side of the aisle want to attribute 
the fact that the President was not on prime-time television tonight to 
some remarkable foible of this administration. Madam Speaker, what kind 
of nonsense is that? What kind of distortion of the truth is that?
  So when we hear these kinds of things, it really disturbs me, it 
saddens me, because it cheapens the debate that we have here when you 
have that kind of distortion.
  The question was asked, how did the President of Iran get to be so 
strong? But one of the reasons he is so strong is because our friends 
on the other side of the aisle have not participated in assisting us on 
an energy agenda that will make it so we have American energy for 
Americans. There is some truth for you. The folks who continue to throw 
stones on the other side of the aisle constantly, and we will talk 
about this this evening, make it so that they put roadblocks in the way 
of trying to increase American independence in the area of energy.
  So, Madam Speaker, in fact, I would appreciate some help from the 
other side of the aisle for some United Nations reform. We have had a 
bill on the floor of the House here to reform the United Nations, to 
reform the United States' participation in the United Nations.

                              {time}  2220

  And goodness knows we can't get any support from our good friends on 
the other side of the aisle, but they are ready, willing, and able to 
come down to the House floor and criticize the United States for their 
participation in the United Nations. Are they willing to help us solve 
the problem? Madam Speaker, I haven't seen that.
  I also heard my friend from Maryland this evening talk about the 
contractors in Iraq. And he used as the font of all wisdom and 
knowledge about the contractors in Iraq who were hired. Madam Speaker, 
did you hear who he used as the resource for all of that? You know, 
when we were growing up we would have to cite our resources in our 
papers for school and for university, and it had to be something 
reliable. Did you hear who we used, Madam Speaker? The Washington Post. 
Now there is a reliable source for you.
  But when he brought that information, he didn't bring it by way of 
enlightenment; he brought it by way of criticism, by way of division, 
by way of tearing down those individuals who are working just as hard 
as they can to make certain that Iraq is restored and has an 
opportunity to become a democratic and sovereign nation on its own. 
Division, division, distortion, demagoguery, misinformation, 
disinformation. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Maryland 
to apologize to the Members, to the United States citizens who are 
working as hard as they can in Iraq as independent contractors, risking 
their lives just like the military. Some of them have actually been 
murdered by our enemies in Iraq. So I would hope that the gentleman 
would reconsider what he said.
  Don't you get tired of it, Madam Speaker, that kind of distortion of 
the fact, that kind of division? I certainly do, and I know my 
constituents do at home. They get tired of the fighting, of the 
backbiting. They get tired of three or four individuals who can stand 
up here for an hour on the floor of the House and not offer one single, 
one single positive solution to the challenges that confront us as a 
Nation. And the challenges are big; these are big challenges. They are 
not Republican challenges, they are not Democrat challenges, they are 
American challenges.
  And so, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to come and have the opportunity 
at the pleasure of the leadership to be able to come and talk a little 
bit about some positive things about America, some positive things that 
we have done, but also to provide some truth. Remember Senator 
Moynihan's comment, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they 
are not entitled to their own facts. So we would like to bring some 
facts tonight about a couple different areas, primarily national 
security because it has been talked about just recently, and the issue 
of the economy, the economic perspective in our Nation. And I think it 
is extremely important that when we discuss this, that again we 
remember that truth and facts are important. And so I am going to 
present some information here that I hope that Members of the House are 
listening to. I hope that they are listening to, and, frankly, I hope 
that the American people are listening, because there is some 
information that I think that they will be extremely, extremely 
interested in, especially when we talk about votes as it relates to 
issues on the floor of the House.
  So the Official Truth Squad is pleased to be able to come and talk a 
little bit about national security and about the economy.
  Now, there is certainly no more important function of the Federal 
Government than the security of the American people. And Republicans, 
as everyone knows, have always been committed to national security. Our 
Nation's defense, our Homeland Security and border control and the 
global war on terror are not just priorities for this administration, 
but they are indeed priorities for all House Republicans. And if there 
were ever any question in anyone's mind about whether or not we are a 
Nation that remains at risk because of enemies around the world, then 
all one has to do is look to a very recent activity in England where 
the United States, along with our good friends in Great Britain and 
friends in Pakistan, were able to thwart a plan by our enemies, by our 
enemies who have sworn to make certain they end our way of life. We 
were able to thwart a plan to bring down many, many airliners that 
would kill thousands, thousands of innocent civilians.
  So it is clear that the global war on terror is indeed a huge 
priority. It is a priority for us. I would hope that it would be a 
priority for all Members of the House. However, the Democrats continue 
to try to obstruct our security plans, and they have been essentially a 
party of ``no,'' with no alternative plans to meet our security needs. 
And I would ask, Madam Speaker, folks to remember just the hour that we 
have just heard by our good friends on the other side of the aisle, and 
try to recollect one single solution that was offered. Madam Speaker, I 
suspect that you, like I, can't remember it, because in fact there were 
no solutions that were offered.
  For instance, Democrats have called time and time again for the 
redeployment of our troops. And there was a commentator or an 
interviewer on television recently who asked a member of the Democrat 
Caucus, where do you want them redeployed to? And he couldn't come up 
with an answer. But occasionally they will come up with an answer, and 
oftentimes they will say, well, they ought to be able to redeploy to 
Okinawa. Well, now there is a thought, Madam Speaker, redeploy the 
troops from Iraq to Okinawa. If you take a look at the globe, the port 
of Newport News and Norfolk is closer to Iraq than Okinawa. So 
redeployment of troops to Okinawa makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[[Page 18553]]

  Now, the other side of the aisle, the Democrats are certainly good at 
saying no, but they are not good at laying forth alternative plans. 
What they don't seem to understand is the magnitude of the threat of 
terrorism or indeed what is at stake. Their leader has been quoted as 
saying, ``We don't even have a party position on the war.'' This is 
certainly evidenced by their inability to present a plan for combating 
terrorism in this remarkably difficult and changed post-9/11 world.
  There is one Democrat leader who has in fact said that the global war 
on terror isn't really all that relevant. Can you imagine, Madam 
Speaker, we have the remarkable activities in England just last month, 
the knowledge and understanding that our enemy is making plans day in 
and day out to try to kill innocent civilians across all free nations, 
to try to do their best to make certain that we end our way of life, 
that they end our way of life, and we have a Democrat leader in this 
House who says that the global war on terror isn't really all that 
relevant. Well, with a stance like that, our leader says, with a stance 
like that, it is easy to see why Capitol Hill Democrats have no record 
of accomplishment on national security issues and lack a coherent 
agenda on the biggest challenge of the day.
  Just this month, House Republicans will continue to focus our floor 
action on important security issues. We will be authorizing the 
President's Terror Surveillance Program, which is designed to identify 
and disrupt terror cells planning to attack against the United States. 
This is the kind of program that was utilized to assist in the 
activities that foiled the plot in England.
  Now, when I go home, Madam Speaker, I don't know about you, but when 
I go home and I talk to my constituents and they say, what on Earth are 
you all arguing about? How can it be that anybody in this Nation 
believes that we as a Nation don't have the responsibility, in fact 
don't have the absolute imperative to make certain that we are 
listening and hearing and determining what our enemies are saying if 
they are outside the United States? I have significant concern on 
privacy issues when you are talking about communication between a 
United States citizen in the United States and another United States 
citizen in the United States. That is a different issue, Madam Speaker. 
And when individuals confuse and confound those two, they do a 
disservice to every single American.

                              {time}  2230

  The issue is not whether or not that kind of communication is 
protected. The issue is, in fact, whether or not we, as elected 
representatives of constituents all across this Nation, will respond to 
what they believe, our constituents believe, Americans all across this 
Nation, is an imperative for our government to do, and that is to have 
a terrorism surveillance program that lets us know what the bad guys 
are going to do before they do it. Clearly that is the most effective 
means of combating the war on terror, is to make certain we know what 
our enemy is going to do before they do it and then stop them before 
they do it.
  In the House this month, we will be authorizing military tribunals 
for suspected terrorists. These are noncitizens fighting under any 
flag. These are terrorists. They have proclaimed to kill you and me and 
end our way of life as a Nation. They are not fighting for a nation. 
They have never signed the Geneva Accords themselves. These are evil 
people who must be dealt with by different rules. This is unlike any 
war the world has ever seen. That is not to say that they ought to be 
treated inhumanely, but they need to be treated with different rules in 
order for us to gain the kind of information that we need, in addition 
to being able to hold these people who are interested in doing us 
great, great harm, great harm.
  This month the House Republicans have passed a resolution to 
recognize the 5-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As I go 
through these, I think it is important for Members of the House as well 
as Americans all across the Nation to appreciate as these votes come 
up, watch where the votes go, watch who is supporting these commonsense 
protections for the American people.
  A resolution recognizing the 5-year anniversary of the 9/11 attack, 
we even had some Members on the other side of the aisle vote against 
that. They objected strenuously that it came to the floor of the House 
for a vote.
  Strengthening border security. We had a debate on building a fence 
along the southern border to make sure that our Nation is secure. This 
week we will deal with some issues that will provide for allowing local 
law enforcement individuals, both State and local, the right and 
privilege to detain and retain illegals who come under their 
jurisdiction until the Federal Government comes and is able to deport 
them. Right now that is not the case. We will have a bill on the floor 
that will once and for all end the catch-and-release program that has 
been operating at the border.
  I ask the American people to watch who is voting on these issues. 
There is no reason on Earth that we ought to apprehend an individual 
coming across our border illegally and then give him a piece of paper 
and say, you have to come back in 90 days and we will try you. They 
just blend into society.
  A catch-and-release program does not work. There are over 400,000 
individuals who have already in this Nation gone through the process. 
They were here illegally, they are found to be guilty of another crime 
and been ordered deported, and yet they are told to come back and 
report for their deportation date. And the catch-and-release program 
does not make any sense.
  We will have on the floor this week a bill to provide for a catch-
and-return policy, which means if they are apprehended coming into our 
Nation illegally, they are returned to their country of origin.
  There was the discovery once again of another tunnel between San 
Diego or the San Diego area and Mexico. Apparently it was some 400 feet 
long, and it was used to smuggle drugs and contraband and illegals into 
the United States. That was just discovered. We will have a bill on the 
floor to strengthen the laws as it relates to the building of tunnels 
for the purpose of bringing drugs and smuggling aliens in.
  We will have on the floor funding and protecting American troops, the 
defense authorization conference report, and defense and military 
quality of life appropriations conference reports, and then homeland 
security conference reports which will provide that funding for border 
security and for the barriers that I talked about.
  And it is extremely important to watch who is voting for these things 
and who is opposing them. Oftentimes what we find is that individuals 
will say one thing at home, and then they come to Washington, and there 
is something in the air here that makes them do something different. We 
respectfully request that folks watch and see who is voting for what.
  On the issue of border security, maintaining the integrity of our 
borders is an economic and a security concern. Americans are worried 
about the vulnerabilities at our borders, and House Republicans have 
passed several pieces of legislation to strengthen our borders, put 
more technology and personnel at the borders, and develop systems to 
ascertain who crosses the border and for what purposes. We need to know 
who is coming in to our Nation.
  The Republican plan for border security focuses on providing more 
Border Patrol agents, strengthening security through additional fencing 
and infrastructure, stricter enforcement, and enhancing State and local 
law enforcement authority. These are the foundations that must be set 
before we can begin the next step of immigration reforms. It is 
imperative, the American people are demanding, that we put our 
priorities first on controlling the border, making certain we know who 
is coming into our Nation.
  It ought not surprise anybody to get a little truth now, and that is 
that the Democrats have not supported the efforts to secure our 
borders. We passed the REAL ID Act, the act that provide

[[Page 18554]]

for an appropriate form of identification for people traveling on an 
airplane. This would go a long way in identifying individuals here 
illegally, and 152 Democrats voted ``no,'' including the top two 
members of their leadership. They voted against the REAL ID Act.
  We passed the Border Protection Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration 
Control Act, which was the bill that has been proclaimed by those 
individuals who truly know and appreciate what it is going to take to 
control and secure our border. They believe it is the most appropriate 
bill that has come through Congress, certainly more appropriate than 
the version that came out of the Senate. But on that bill, 164 
Democrats oppose that bill, including the top two in their leadership.
  So folks may say one thing at home, and when they come to Washington, 
they oftentimes do something completely different.
  On our Nation's defense, people who fight for our freedom must be 
fully supported. The House Armed Services Committee and our 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and Military Quality of Life 
have concentrated their efforts on making certain that we meet those 
needs, as well as helping transform the Department of Defense to meet 
the threats for the next century.
  In the area of intelligence reform, this is where I talked about 
making certain that we know what the bad guys are going to do it before 
they do it. Republicans have worked with the administration and 
intelligence agencies to help transform our intelligence-gathering 
capabilities and analyzing system. Rather than accept that we need to 
focus our efforts on this kind of reform, Democrats instead want to 
focus on just attacking the administration. You hear it over and over 
again.
  Madam Speaker, it is like a broken record. They have tried to 
discredit the terrorist surveillance program that we talked about and 
other policies which have helped protect our Nation from further 
attack. It is not a mistake or just a happenstance that we as a Nation 
have not been attacked since 9/11. There are incredible individuals 
working day and night to make certain that we are safe as a Nation.
  The 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act that was proposed in 
2004, these are the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that you 
hear people talking about on the other side of the aisle all the time 
and that we should implement them. We had the bill that implemented a 
significant portion of those, and what happened? A majority, 125 
Democrats, including their leader, voting to oppose it, voted ``no'' to 
implement significant recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  So, Madam Speaker, remember, you are entitled to your own opinions, 
but are not entitled to your own facts.
  The global war on terrorism is truly the most important activity, 
most important war of our generation, and it is a war like no other, as 
we have talked about. It is fought on many different levels: military, 
intelligence, economic, technology, cyberworld, Internet, all corners 
of the Earth.
  Again, this is not a war that we sought. We didn't go out looking for 
this. It has been brought to our shores and brought to us, and there 
are terrorists out there who truly want to kill us, and they say that 
explicitly.

                              {time}  2240

  If you don't believe me, you just ought to listen to them. They are 
interested in murdering and killing innocent civilians and ending our 
way of life. If we do not take their words seriously and take them at 
their word, we do so at our peril. It is the simple and horrible truth, 
Madam Speaker. We must face this fact and employ all efforts, all 
efforts, to thwart their many attempts.
  Oftentimes the Democrats will talk a good game on protecting the 
homeland; but when push come to shove, they certainly demonstrate that 
they don't understand the real issues that affect our homeland and our 
national security. Again, they have been the loud party of ``no,'' with 
no alternative plans to meet our security needs. And although we still 
cannot fully understand why the terrorists hate our way of life so 
much, we do understand this much: that we are in a real war.
  Almost 5 years after the attacks on
9/11, Islamic extremist groups, jihadists, continue to represent the 
most immediate threat to the United States and to our allies and to our 
interests abroad. And at the urging of Osama bin Laden, every American 
man, woman, and child has become a legitimate target in their jihad. 
And, again, this is their words. It is not our conjecture. It is not 
our opinion. It is truth. It is fact.
  Now, we are blessed with an absolutely outstanding military that has 
taken the battle to the enemy, and it is extremely important that we 
fight these battles at their point of origin. We have many good and 
faithful allies all around the globe, and we have taken that fight 
forward, supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan in rooting 
out the enemy before he can strike again. And we are cooperating with 
friendly forces from the Philippines to Africa and from the Middle East 
to South America. And we are united. We are united against this threat.
  But the United States, we remain a Nation at war. We are not safe 
simply because we have not seen an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. We 
are safer today because of the professionals of the worldwide network 
of intelligence and military and law enforcement officials who continue 
to pressure and strike al Qaeda and its followers. And we must continue 
the pressure on these radical organizations until victory for all 
freedom-loving people of the world is assured. September 11, 2001, 
showed us the danger of Islamic jihadism, and it also taught us that 
deficiencies in our own system made it possible for terrorists to 
operate right under our noses.
  Our most important duty, as Members of Congress, is to protect our 
Nation from ever experiencing that lesson again. And for that reason, 
we must, we must continue to focus on improving our national security, 
our homeland security, and our intelligence systems.
  But, again, the fact of the matter is the Democrats do not seem to 
understand that the threat of terrorism exists or even what is at 
stake. Remember what their leader said, they do not even have a party 
position on the war and an individual in their leadership said they 
didn't think the global war on terror was really all that relevant.
  Recently, just a couple weeks ago, their leader, in a press 
conference, made a stunning and contradictory assessment that capturing 
Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, the terrorist organization 
responsible for numerous attacks against the United States, including 
those of 9/11, would ``not make America any safer.'' ``Even if he's 
caught tomorrow, she said, ``I don't think that makes us any safer.''
  Now, with a stance like that, it is easy to see why Capitol Hill 
Democrats have no record of accomplishment on national security or 
their issues and that they lack a coherent agenda on the biggest 
challenge of the day for this Congress and, yes, this Nation.
  As I mentioned, they have called for implementing the recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission. Over and over they have called, but repeatedly 
Capitol Hill Democrats have opposed legislation implementing the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission meant to strengthen America's 
national security and to prevent further attacks.
  The 9/11 Commission said: ``The government has made significant 
strides in using terrorism financing as an intelligence tool.'' So what 
happened on House Resolution 895, the legislation supporting 
intelligence and law enforcement programs that track terrorists and 
condemn with proper congressional oversight the publication of any 
classified information that could potentially impair the fight against 
terrorism, that is, implementing one of the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations? What happened? 174 Democrats voted ``no.'' 174 voted 
``no.''
  They call for the immediate implementation of the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations. One of the 9/11 Commission recommendations was: ``The 
READ ID Act has established statute standards for State-issued IDs 
acceptable for Federal purposes, though

[[Page 18555]]

States' compliance needs to be closely monitored.'' What happened with 
that bill that the 9/11 Commission said was a wise idea and ought to be 
adopted? 152 of our friends on the other side of the aisle voted 
``no.'' 152.
  They talk about immediately implementing the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations. A quote from the 9/11 Commission: ``The House and 
Senate have taken positive steps, but Secretary Chertoff and his team 
still report to too many bosses. The House and Senate Homeland Security 
Committees should have exclusive jurisdiction over all counterterrorism 
functions of the Department of Homeland Security.'' That is a 
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, a recommendation that our good 
friends say ought to be immediately implemented. So when the proposal 
comes up to do just that, a majority, 120 of them, vote ``no.''
  Madam Speaker, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not 
entitled to your own facts.
  So in the area of national security, I think it is clear. There is a 
party, there are leaders in this Congress on the Republican side of the 
aisle who understand the threat, understand the gravity of the 
situation, understand and appreciate that we have a real enemy, 
understand and appreciate that that real enemy is interested in causing 
significant harm to our Nation and in murdering innocent civilians, and 
we are taking actions day in and day out, including this week, to make 
certain that we are more safe and more secure as a Nation.
  So I challenge and call on my friends on the other side of the aisle 
to join us. Don't just talk about it. Don't just come down here and 
paint doom and gloom. There are people here who are working hard. 
Remember what Churchill said? ``Criticism is easy. Achievement is 
difficult.'' ``Achievement is difficult.'' So join us. You might find 
that being part of the solution instead of just railing against the 
individuals who are in positions of leadership now is actually 
beneficial, that your constituents actually appreciate the work that 
you are doing in a bipartisan manner. Boy, wouldn't that be wonderful? 
We certainly would welcome you to participate.
  Madam Speaker, I talked about the concern that the Official Truth 
Squad has about all of the disinformation and the misinformation that 
goes on, and I was looking a little over a year ago for a quote. I am a 
fan of quotes. I enjoy quotes, and I think that oftentimes individuals 
in history have given us great perspective on our Nation and great 
perspective on our principles and the roots of our Nation. And the 
``politics of division'' really irritates me, and I think it does a 
disservice to our Nation because we are so strong and we are united as 
a Nation.
  But the other side of the aisle seems intent on tearing down, on 
dividing. You have heard some of it this evening. The extending tax 
cuts for millionaires you heard tonight and all sorts of remarkable 
divisive statements. The comment about the contractors in Iraq was a 
divisive statement, where we have hardworking American citizens who are 
putting their lives at risk and they get criticized in order for some 
divisive purpose, to try to gain some political points. Madam Speaker, 
it is just disheartening to hear that kind of conversation, and it does 
a disservice to our Nation.
  When I attempted to find a quote that would crystallize that emotion, 
I came across this one, the Reverend William Boetcker, who was a leader 
and a public speaker in the late 19th and early 20th century. He was 
trying to crystallize the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln in his social 
philosophy, and it is one of my favorite quotes. He said: ``You cannot 
bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen 
the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by 
pulling down the wage payer. You cannot encourage the brotherhood of 
man by encouraging class hatred.''

                              {time}  2250

  You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out 
of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character 
and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. And you 
cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could do for 
themselves.
  And so, Madam Speaker, I turn now to addressing the issue of vision 
and addressing the issue of the economy. House Republicans have 
realized, certainly do realize the importance of developing and having 
a vision to focus our efforts and to ensure that we address what is 
important for the American people. And we came together and highlighted 
a vision earlier this year that would address this new American 
century. And we came up with the following vision. We will promote 
dignity and future of every individual. It is important to talk about 
the individual. Madam Speaker, often times you hear the folks on the 
other side of the aisle talk about groups of folks. And again they like 
to separate people into groups so that they can divide and conquer.
  But it is the individual, it is the individual who makes things 
great. So we will promote the dignity and the future of every 
individual by building a free society, under a limited, accountable 
government that protects our liberty, our security, and our prosperity 
for a brighter American dream.
  Now, the Democrats had no such vision. Again, they are the ``party of 
no,'' they have got no plan to lead the Nation. That is a dangerous way 
to try to take over the majority of the House of Representatives. And 
it is clear. We heard it again tonight. Their actions are guided by 
politics and discrediting the administration over and over again rather 
than focusing on a positive agenda for the American people.
  Again that is the kind of information and the kind of requests that I 
get at home when I talk to my constituents about a passion for a 
positive agenda for America. Because, we are a great, great Nation. And 
we work so well together when we work unified. And that is what folks 
at home tell me that they would desire, that we move together forward 
in unity.
  Now, I want to talk a little bit about our economy. And I think it is 
important to appreciate that our economy today is truly remarkably 
strong. And the numbers prove that. Our Nation has bounced back from 
the blow that the economy took following the attacks of 9/11. Our 
unemployment is low. Home ownership across all sectors of our society 
is the highest it has ever been.
  And recently, as I know in your home state, Madam Speaker, the gas 
prices are falling. Now, we got a lot of criticism for the gas prices 
going up, so we ought to take a fair amount of credit for them coming 
down. The most recent economic numbers are truly remarkable.
  Although this chart is a little old, the trends are absolutely 
accurate and correct. Unemployment. The Employment gains continue. 
128,000 new payroll jobs were created in August, A total of 5.7 million 
new jobs since August of 2003.
  The unemployment rate is at a point, at a level of 4.7 percent, 4.7 
percent. I know that there are some economist amongst our midst who 
understand and appreciate that full employment is basically 5 percent, 
used to be 6 percent a number of decades ago, but they revised it 
downward to 5 percent being full employment. That means that basically 
folks who are interested having a job have a job.
  GDP growth for the second quarter was revised up to 2.9 from an 
earlier estimate of 2.5 percent. Gasoline prices have fallen recently 
with the average regular unleaded gasoline falling to below $2.70 a 
gallon. I know in my area it is $2.22 cents when I drove to the airport 
this moving to come here.
  Oil apparently today was down to less than $62 a barrel, which is a 
significant move downward. And, Madam Speaker, this is due, these 
numbers are due to the policies put in place by this Republican 
Congress and our effort to spur the economy and lay the foundation for 
the economy of the next century.
  Now, elections are coming up. I know that is a surprise to some. But 
if you heard the kind of comments made earlier on the floor this 
evening you can tell that elections are coming up. But

[[Page 18556]]

the American people understand that elections are about choices, and 
they are about the future. And there is a clear choice between 
Republicans who are working to enact serious reforms that will grow our 
economy, and reduce the deficit, and Capitol Hill Democrats who are 
interested in spending more of America's taxpayer dollars on wasteful 
Government programs as they see fit.
  Now, I want to point out two things on this and the next poster. This 
poster here has the years down on the lower portion here, 2000-2006. 
And it has, this blue line here is the number of new jobs created, the 
number of new jobs created. And since August of 2003, this has 5.3, it 
is actually 5.7 million new jobs created in that period of time.
  There is a vertical dotted green line here. And that vertical dotted 
green line marks the point where the tax decreases, the appropriate and 
fair tax decreases for the American people were enacted by this 
administration and by this Congress. And since that point, what you 
have seen, again, here is jobs growth going down. Tax decreases put 
into place, and jobs go up.
  These red bars are business investment in these quarters. See 
business investment down, which means a slower economy, not as many 
jobs, not as much economic activity or growth. What happens when 
appropriate, fair tax decreases are put in place? The economy 
flourishes. No mistake about it. It occurs every time that significant 
tax reduction is put in place, has been put in place over the last 50 
years in our Nation.
  President Kennedy knew it. It occurred when he instituted appropriate 
tax decreases. President Reagan knew it. It occurred when he instituted 
tax decreases, and occurred with president George W. Bush with the 
appropriate tax decreases of 2003.
  Now, I think it is important to appreciate that the other side truly 
has no plan for the economy. In fact they have not proposed any plans 
to address the mandatory programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 
those things that are on automatic pilot that now comprise about 54 
percent of the budget, and unless they are addressed in relatively 
short order they will cause a significantly greater drain on the 
economy, decrease the economic growth and activity that we have seen.
  The other side is literally blind and has not proposed any proposals 
to improve or to reform those spending programs. In fact, what they 
have done is to propose in the last fiscal year 2006 budget, these were 
their proposals, these were the things that they actually did write 
down and bring to committees and bring to the floor of the House, new 
spending to the tune of $21.5 billion, and new taxes, new taxes to the 
tune of $54 billion with again no savings, no savings in Medicare, 
Medicaid, Social Security, those items that if nothing is doing to 
those three items by 2030, they will consume the entire budget, the 
entire budget.
  So it is not something that you can just say, well, do not worry 
about it, we do not have to do anything to those items because they 
will take care of themselves.
  Over the past 4 years, if the Democrats had been in control, they 
talk about their desire to take control of the House and to lead, well, 
what would have happened if they would have been in control for the 
last 4 years and had their proposals put in place?
  If they had been in control, discretionary spending would have 
increased by over $106 billion. Amazingly, although they talk a good 
game, they have voted consistently against any significant budget 
reform efforts.
  The Deficit Reduction Act, that bill that was passed earlier this 
bill that saved approximately $40 billion, $40 billion saved, the 
Democrats unanimously, unanimously voted against that bill, the Deficit 
Reduction Act.
  In fact, one of their leaders was heard to say something like, we are 
not going to give them a single vote on this, and said it with great 
pride. Again, that is that politics of division, that desire to not be 
productive, to not be positive about solutions as they come forward 
here in the Congress.

                              {time}  2300

  What about the line item veto? When I go home, I hear folks talk 
about budgetary improvements we could make here in Washington. Many of 
them ask about the line item veto, why can't we allow the 
administration, any administration, to pick those items in the budget 
and say no, we ought not be spending money on that specific item. Good 
idea. I have supported it. The vast majority of my colleagues on the 
Republican side have supported it.
  What happened when the bill came here to the floor for a vote? Well, 
Madam Speaker, the vote occurred earlier this year, rollcall vote 317, 
and the number of individuals on their side of the aisle supporting it, 
35. The vast majority, 156, voting no.
  That is the line item veto. That is one of those proposals that you 
hear them talk about all the time, wanting to make certain that the 
line item veto is passed. But when given the opportunity, when given 
the opportunity to stand up and say yes, that is exactly what we want 
to do, what do they say? No. ``No, we don't believe that we ought to 
have that kind of reform,'' even though that is what they say when they 
go home.
  Earmark reform. What about earmark reform? We had the Lobbying 
Accountability and Transparency Act. These are the special projects put 
into bills. We have had a couple of votes on this.
  The first one that we had earlier, H.R. 4975, 192 Democrats vote no, 
including their top two members of their leadership.
  Recently all it was was a sunshine bill. It said that if you are 
going to put a special project into the budget, that you ought to put 
your name beside it. I had a bill that I called ``sunshine for 
earmarks.'' It said that if you are going to have a special project in 
an appropriations bill, that you ought to have to put your name beside 
it so that your constituents know you put it in there and they can look 
at it and say yes, this is what we want our Member of Congress to do, 
or no, we don't think that is something that he or she ought to be 
doing, so the colleagues here, Members' colleagues in the House, can 
know where these kinds of requests are coming from. It is important. It 
is important to have that kind of sunshine.
  It is a simple, simple proposal. It is important for the press to 
know so that when they are providing their oversight of the fourth 
estate, that in fact they know who has put these items in.
  So what kind of vote did we get? Again, this is a proposal that they 
talk about all the time. ``If we could just have some earmark reform.'' 
So we bring it to the floor, call for a vote, it passes because the 
vast majority of colleagues on my side of the aisle, our side of the 
aisle, the Republican side of the aisle supported it. But what did 
those folks on the other side do? 147 of them, the vast majority voted 
no, including 15 ranking members. These are Members who are the most 
senior members on the committees in the United States House of 
Representatives. These are the individuals, if the other side were to 
by some chance take over and gain the majority, these are the 
individuals who would be chairmen. They would be chairs of the 
committees.
  And what do they say with their vote, the vast majority? They say no, 
we don't want earmark reform. We don't want special project reform. We 
may say we do, but we really don't. We don't believe it in so much that 
when given the opportunity to vote for it, they vote no. And the 
leadership, what did the leadership do? Voted no. That is what they did 
on the other side of the aisle.
  So, Madam Speaker, every single Member, every single individual is 
entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own 
facts, and these are the facts about who is truly interested in 
budgetary reform and earmark reform.
  To make matters worse, they are more than eager to raise your taxes. 
You hear the code words, and the code words recently have become 
``shared sacrifice.'' Have you heard that, Madam Speaker, ``shared 
sacrifice?''
  What that means is raising your taxes, because they believe that they 
know how to spend your money better

[[Page 18557]]

than you. That is one of the principles that they have about how they 
plan to grow the government, how they plan to cover all these special 
projects and programs that they wish to have adopted. That would have 
not only a horrible impact on the economy, but it would also give them 
even more revenue, increased revenue in the government to spend.
  Madam Speaker, when I hear the other side talk, if you just listen to 
them, you get so doggone depressed. But I am optimistic about the 
future of this Nation. I am optimistic about this economy.
  The United States has the number one economy in the world, and in 
order to assure that vibrant economy in the 21st century, we in the 
House have focused on a comprehensive set of policies and incentives 
that will build on a solid economic foundation.
  This won't be accomplished by Federal funds though, because Federal 
funds don't solve that kind of challenge. That is done by private 
capital. The private sector, not government bureaucrats, know how money 
should be spent, what resources are needed and what type of training 
workers will require. Unfortunately, unfortunately, there are way too 
many government roadblocks that stand in the way of business 
development and that deter investment, both here and abroad.
  There are steps that we can take and we will take to restore our 
Nation's competitiveness and ensure that America remains the land of 
opportunity. We are not the status quo party. The Republicans are not 
the status quo party. We are the party of change, we are the party of 
vision, we are the party of entrepreneurship, we are the party of 
individual responsibility, we are the party of success.
  So we will work to address health care security, termination of 
bureaucratic red tape, lifelong learning, trade fairness and 
opportunity, tax relief and simplification, energy self-sufficiency and 
security, innovation and investment, and ending lawsuit abuse and 
litigation management.
  I tell you, Madam Speaker, that is an agenda that the American people 
can be proud of. It is an agenda that the American people can embrace 
with enthusiasm, with optimism, with passion, not with a dour look on 
your face and say ``woe is me, isn't the world awful.''
  These are the exciting kind of proposals. These are exciting 
proposals that we will put forward before the House as we continue our 
leadership, our strong leadership, to bring about increasing American 
competitiveness.
  For 3 years, House Republicans have promoted the House economic 
competitiveness agenda. This year alone we have passed over 39 pieces 
of legislation that will help make America more competitive. We have 
real solutions. Republicans offer real solutions. We invite our 
colleagues to join us in moving America forward and providing an 
opportunity for the United States businesses and working families.
  But instead, they have no plan, and instead of working with us at the 
committee level or on the House floor, the Democrats have tried to 
undermine the economic competitiveness agenda over and over and over 
again.
  Again, their so-called innovative agenda is not innovative. It is a 
call for increased government spending, presumably fueled by increased 
taxes. In response to our economic agenda, at so many different points 
they have been nothing but obstructionists over and over again.
  For example, college access for all. They say they are for expanding 
access to college, yet they voted against the College Access and 
Opportunity Act, 181 of them, including the top two leaders in their 
party, 181 of them voted against the College Access and Opportunity 
Act.
  Energy independence, Democrats say they want to end our dependence on 
foreign oil, and yet they try to obstruct every single plan to access 
America's own oil and natural gas reserves, such as tapping into ANWR 
and the OCS.
  The Energy Policy Act, 183 Democrats, including their top two 
leaders, voted no. Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act, 176 Democrats, 
including their top two leaders, voted no. And the Deep Ocean Energy 
Resources Act, 156 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted 
no.
  Affordable health care, a difficult challenge for so many large and 
small businesses around our Nation, Democrats say they want to help 
employers provide health insurance to their employees. But they vote 
against every single measure to do so. The HEALTH Act, 185 Democrats, 
including their top two leaders, voted no. Small Business Health 
Fairness Act, 165 Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no. 
And recently, the Health Information Technology Promotion Act, 
something that would truly streamline health care for our Nation, 139 
Democrats, including their top two leaders, voted no. So, Madam 
Speaker, it truly is a remarkable contrast between the two parties.
  I want to put up one more chart, because when you think about what 
would happen if the other side were in fact to be in the majority, I 
get questions at home, what would they do? What would they do?
  Again, elections are about choices and they are about the future, and 
to determine what they would do, all you have to do is look at the 
legislation that they have proposed, the legislation they proposed. I 
presume that is what they would do, don't you, Madam Speaker?

                              {time}  2310

  The top two bills that they have proposed, H. Res. 635 and H. Res. 
636, the first step in impeaching President Bush resolution and the 
second step in impeaching President Bush resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I do not believe that the American people are 
interested in leadership in this House of Representatives that has as 
its number one priority the impeachment of the President of the United 
States. That is not what the American people are interested in.
  What else are they interested in? H.R. 4683, the Federal Health Care 
System Government-Run Health Care Act. House Democrats want to create a 
Federal health care system without choices, which would combine the 
efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the compassion of 
the IRS, and they would tax Americans to get to it. They would amend 
the Social Security Act, the bill would, to impose on the income of 
every individual a tax equal to 1.7 percent of wages received, and on 
every employer an excise tax of 7 percent of the wages paid to each 
employee, and on the self-employment income of every individual a tax 
equal to the applicable percentage of the self-employment income for 
such taxable year. Who cosponsors that? Ranking Democrats, remember, 
the individuals who would be chairmen of the committees, ranking 
Democrats and senior members of the Democrat Caucus.
  Madam Speaker, I do not think that is what Americans are bargaining 
for. That is not what I hear my constituents say they want when I go 
home and talk to them which is every single week. They are not 
interested in the Federal Government running health care.
  H.R. 1018, it is called the Permanent Welfare Housing Act. I call it 
the welfare reform repeal Act. Public housing, this bill would remove 
provisions that residents of public housing are required to participate 
in 8 hours per month of either community service or economic self-
sufficiency activities in order to retain their public housing. Who are 
the sponsors? The ranking Democrats, remember folks who would be 
chairmen of these committees, and multiple, multiple senior Democrat 
Members.
  Madam Speaker, one of the most incredible and productive and positive 
pieces of legislation that has passed through this Congress in the past 
12 years has been welfare reform. It has put literally millions of 
Americans back to work, to be productive citizens, to have pride in 
what they are doing, to believe that they have some worth and they have 
some input into the productivity of this Nation. What is it that the 
other side wants to do? Well, they want to repeal portions of it that 
would provide that kind of sense of accomplishment and sense of 
participation.

[[Page 18558]]

  So, Madam Speaker, Republicans understand that it is the American 
people who built this Nation, American people who built this economy 
and made this the land of opportunity. Washington's job as the people's 
representative is to provide national and economic security and to give 
each individual the freedom and the protection to pursue their American 
dream.
  The imagination and hard work of the American people have built this 
wonderful and beautiful Nation, and they have made it prosperous. Our 
task as Members of the United States Congress is to ensure that this 
remains true for the next century.
  Once again, the other side relies on the vague promises and big 
government programs to solve every perceived problem in the United 
States. Government is not the answer, and this philosophy, which is 
truly left over from previous bureaucratic administrations of the 1960s 
and 1970s, has only slowed down progress in our Nation every single 
time it has been instituted.
  Madam Speaker, we live in a glorious Nation. It is a wondrous Nation, 
a Nation that is still seen by men and women around the world as a 
beacon of liberty and repository of hope. I am incredibly proud to 
serve in the United States House of Representatives and to have the 
opportunity to share this positive perspective and this positive vision 
with my colleagues and with the Nation as we have done tonight.

                          ____________________