[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 121 (Thursday, July 25, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H4935-H4940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  RECOGNIZING OUTSTANDING CITIZENS OF MISSOURI'S FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL 
                                DISTRICT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 9, 2023, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).
  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton) for her courage. We 
love her, and America thanks her.


                      Recognizing Patrick O'Hanlon

  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate our top 10 
speechwriters for this year's Missouri's Fourth Congressional District 
Speech Competition. They were chosen to write speeches on what America 
means to them, and we are so proud of the work they are doing in their 
schools to keep the American Dream and spirit alive.
  Today, we are sharing several of these speeches, the first from 
Patrick O'Hanlon, from Pleasant Hill, Missouri, in Cass County.
  Patrick writes: ``America is a special country. We have the freedom 
of speech and the freedom of religion. America was built by people from 
around the world. Our Founding Fathers wrote an amazing Constitution 
and Bill of Rights that limits the government's powers and gives 
freedom to the people.
  ``When a B-2 cruised over my home on the Kansas City Royals opening 
day, it was such a magnificent reminder of our exceptional country. It 
was hard not to be overflowing with patriotism. After seeing that, I am 
glad they are on our side. These things are a big part of what America 
means to me.''
  I thank Patrick for being such a shining light in the classroom and 
sharing what America means to him.


                       Recognizing Natalie Myers

  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate another top 10 
speechwriter, this one from Polk County, Natalie Myers, from Pleasant 
Hope Middle School.
  ``America, Where My Heart Calls Home.
  ``America is more than the home of the brave. It is where the heart 
finds home. Home is where the heart belongs. My heart is painted with 
the

[[Page H4936]]

strokes of red, white, and blue. Having the freedom of religion, 
speech, to be who I want to be. That is what America offers me, and I 
thank her in deep gratitude.
  ``America isn't perfect, but we strive for perfection. Let's not 
forget the ones who fought for our land that hold the red, white, and 
blue. America is always ready to provide peace and win battles. America 
is a mighty land that embraces diversity and love. America is my 
home.''
  I congratulate Natalie on a great job and thank her for her work.


                      Recognizing The Cider House

  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Fourth 
Congressional District of Missouri's July Small Business of the Month, 
The Cider House, of Cass County.
  Owned and operated by the Middaugh family, The Cider House was 
established in 2004, but the family business roots run much deeper than 
that. The Middaughs started their business adventure back on four 
corners of 7 Highway in 1978. What began as a seed company grew into a 
fruit market, an orchard, and a red barn that served lunch, pies, 
breads, jams, jellies, and much more. They began hosting home-cooked 
dinner buffets on the weekends, with a band playing upstairs while 
renting the facility.
  In 2001, part of the family bought the farm, which was formerly an 
old horse stable, and began booking events again. With the addition of 
a pumpkin patch, selling seeds, and young children growing up, 
repurchasing the orchard seemed like just the right thing to do. For 
Jeanne and her husband, Chad, they did that.
  Repurchasing the orchard was just what the Middaughs needed, allowing 
the family to rebrand the facility The Cider House and allowing them to 
offer farm-to-table dinners, as well as hosting events that partner 
with local farmers, wineries, and local artists.
  Their story is an inspiring story. It reminds us all of just how hard 
work and family-driven spirits can pay off in Missouri's Fourth 
Congressional District.


               Recognizing Captain Charles ``Ben'' Basye

  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize, honor, and 
remember the July Veteran of the Month, Mr. Charles ``Ben'' Basye, who 
sadly passed away this month in Columbia, Missouri.
  He was born in rural Howard County and attended Union School, a one-
room schoolhouse there. At the age of 15, he graduated from Fayette 
High School. He went on to serve his Nation for nearly 43 years in our 
Armed Forces, spending 11 years in the U.S. Navy and almost 32 in the 
Naval Reserves.
  In World War II, he served aboard the USS Boxer, an Essex-class 
carrier, where he flew multiple fighters. In 1949, he was one of the 
first Navy pilots to land a jet on a carrier during the earliest stages 
of catapult takeoff and landing operations for the Grumman F9F.
  On his 60th birthday, Mr. Basye retired from the Navy with the rank 
of captain. During his service to our Nation, Captain Basye attended 
six different universities, earning bachelor's and master's degrees in 
engineering and a Ph.D. in engineering and mathematics. He taught 18 
different engineering courses and served as a faculty adviser for 400 
engineering students.
  A proud father, he is survived by his four sons, six grandchildren, 
seven great-grandchildren, and one great-great-grandchild.
  He served his Nation, his State, and his family well.
  We honor Captain Basye today on the House floor as July Veteran of 
the Month, and we will continue to honor his life and his legacy. I 
thank Captain Basye for his great service.


                      Recognizing Cackle Hatchery

  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Fourth 
Congressional District of Missouri's August Small Business of the 
Month, Cackle Hatchery, a longtime family-owned source of prime 
poultry.
  Located in Lebanon, Missouri, Cackle Hatchery remains one of the last 
few hobby hatcheries in the United States. It preserves the genetics of 
over 200 varieties of poultry and distributes hundreds of thousands of 
chicks to families and farms each and every year in the United States.
  As a family-owned and family-operated business since 1936, it is one 
of the few businesses in Lebanon that still has had the same owner, 
same location, and same business during that length of time.
  While most hatcheries closed their doors in the mid-1960s, Cackle 
Hatchery continued to provide chicks through local feed stores and mail 
delivery.
  The moniker of hobby hatchery is a representation of Cackle's 
customer base, not the scale of their current business itself.
  I congratulate Cackle Hatchery for exceptionally producing poultry 
year after year. Keep up the great work.


                        Recognizing Harold King

  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our August Veteran of 
the Month, Mr. Harold King.
  Mr. King attended Leigh High School in Nebraska, Utah State 
University, U.S. Armor School, JFK Special Warfare Center and School, 
and Command and General Staff College.
  Mr. King joined the Army as a military policeman in 1984 and held 
many jobs throughout his career. Among those are armor crewman, armor 
officer, company commander, operations officer, and information 
operations officer.
  In 1990, he served in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm with 
4-37 Armor 1st Division as a legacy. His grandfather was in World War 
II.
  He left Active Duty in 1994, becoming a psychological operations 
officer with the 10th PSYOP Battalion in St. Louis, Missouri. Then, in 
2007, Mr. Speaker, he deployed again to Iraq until 2008.
  After that, King remained committed to serving his fellow veterans. 
He worked as a veteran service officer with the Missouri Veterans 
Commission for over 10 years and recently took on an additional duty of 
appeals specialist.
  Right now, he serves as military services coordinator for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs at Fort Leonard Wood. There, he provides 
veterans and servicemembers with the information they need to fully 
understand the comprehensive assistance and benefits available to them.
  He is a devoted father, devoted husband, grandfather to one, and papa 
to a crew of dogs, cats, and fish.
  I congratulate our August Veteran of the Month, Major King, and I 
thank him for his service. Major King makes Missouri's Fourth 
Congressional District and America proud.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleagues on both sides of the aisle a safe 
and productive time working in their district, reconnecting with their 
families, and making memories.
  God bless this body, and God bless the United States of America
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I come behind these 
microphones and often what I share, what I need to share--it is my 
therapy--is a bit dour, and it is sometimes fun to listen to someone 
who actually is happy and joyous.
  Now that the uplifting portion of this program is over, let's get to 
the facts.
  The number, $35 trillion, guess when we hit it. We should be very 
excited and proud of ourselves. We did something that so many 
economists said we would never get to this quickly. My math says, this 
coming Friday, 3 p.m., the United States gross debt will cross over $35 
trillion.
  Now, understand that is not the way Europeans calculate our debt. 
They calculate our debt dramatically higher because of our obligated 
unfunded liabilities, but watch the Treasury, Friday, about 3 p.m., 
post up a number, $35 trillion. We did it. Congratulations.
  How many people have you heard come find the microphone today or this 
week understanding and wanting to talk about that? What we have gotten 
is people coming behind the microphone and not telling the truth. We 
all want to protect Social Security. The way you protect Social 
Security is you know the math and how it actually works.

                              {time}  1200

  We are on track in a decade to double senior poverty. God forbid if 
any of us tell the truth about math because the truth gets you 
unelected and a bunch of really angry ads at home, so this place runs 
around and avoids telling the truth.
  Let's walk through another little factoid. My math basically says 
this year 45.68 percent of all the income tax collections, receipts 
your government takes in, just cover the cost of interest.

[[Page H4937]]

  I have been coming from behind the microphone and saying interest in 
2024, this fiscal year, would be somewhere around a little less than 
$1.2 trillion. I apparently have that wrong. It is probably going to 
come in at about $1.140 to $1.160 trillion. Either way, I am off a 
fraction, but 45.68 percent of every dime we are collecting in your 
income tax now just pays interest.
  I have tried to say it over and over and over at home and other 
places and you get people that just stare at you and go, huh?
  Who really runs this government? Seriously, it is an honest question. 
I need you to think like adults, maybe those who actually went to a 
finance class.
  Who actually now runs this government? I am going to argue the debt 
markets, the bond markets from around the world. If you have to bring 
almost $10 trillion to market this fiscal year--2, 2.25 trillion virgin 
new issues because we are borrowing--that is like $75,000 to $80,000 a 
second right now. The economy is good. The actual baseline data on GDP 
is good, and you are still burning almost $80,000 a second in 
borrowing.
  What happens the second you have a U.S. debt auction that is 
undersubscribed or there are not enough people there? What happens to 
U.S. interest rates? How much of the world goes into depression? Are we 
going to talk about that?
  Oh, God, no. No, because that would require math. That would require 
being serious.
  We passed a bill here earlier today. I voted no on it. They worked 
hard on it. They lowered the top-line spending, but you have got to 
deal with a really uncomfortable discussion: every dime a Member of 
Congress votes on is borrowed.
  Let's process that. Every dime a Member of Congress votes on is 
borrowed and, depending on some of the projections, about a quarter of 
Medicare.
  Social Security has its own trust fund. It runs out in like 9, 10 
years, and then we have got to figure out what is going to happen 
there. We will continue to get Democrats coming behind the microphone 
lying about it, which makes it almost impossible to actually lay out 
the math and try to fix it.
  Remember, raising the cap, doing the Democrats' plan of $400,000 and 
up and just raising the cap, only covers about 38 percent of the 
shortfall.
  You had the President in that debate last month saying if we just tax 
rich people 1 percent more--and I have a chart in here that will show 
it is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the shortfall. 
Remember, if you take $400,000 and up, the Democrats' definition of 
rich, and you tax them at 12.4 percent, you will only cover 38 percent 
of the shortfall.
  This is the nature of our discussion. When every dime a Member of 
Congress votes on is borrowed, is it moral to borrow money here to send 
it to entities around the country, even though there are many programs 
I love? I think they are the right thing. I just think the way we 
finance it isn't. Is it right to send cash to that city, to that State, 
to that county, and they have their own taxing authority? They may have 
more cash in the bank than we do as a percentage.
  Do you borrow money? That is what we are doing today; we are 
borrowing money. The crazy thing is when you do the adjustment for the 
ability for interest to be tax exempt from municipal debt, we have 
municipalities in this country that have a better credit rating than 
the United States.
  Remember, Greece can sell a 10-year bond cheaper than the United 
States today. We are number 14 on the credit stack, meaning there are 
13 other countries that can sell 10-year bonds cheaper than the United 
States.
  If you read the instruments, if you read the Moody's, the S&Ps, their 
documents and their reps and warranties and their analysis on U.S. 
debt, they don't trust this place. They do not believe Congress. We are 
supposed to be the adults in the room. We make policy. The White House 
carries it out.
  Remember that little thing, the Constitution. Maybe someone should 
try reading it. They don't trust us, and they have no reason to trust 
us.
  How much discussion have you heard, anyone that has been listening to 
these microphones this week, heard people like me--which maybe I am 
just an idiot for actually giving a damn--get behind these microphones 
and actually walk through the math and explain there is a way we keep 
our promises.
  There is a way we meet our obligation from the earned benefits. There 
is a way to make this work. You don't have a lot more time to keep 
screwing around, but if you do it in the next 3, 4 years, this is 
another American century.
  I have my 8-year-old sitting over here. I also have a 2-year-old. My 
wife is exactly my age. Yes, I am pathologically optimistic. The math 
says her generation will be the first generation to live poorer than 
her parents. Great morality, Madam Speaker. I am very proud of us.
  Madam Speaker, I thank anyone that listens to my diatribes here. I 
think this is almost like my therapy session because I get angry all 
week long listening to the absurdity and people saying things that 
mathematically have no basis in fact.
  One hundred percent of the debt--and this makes everyone angry, and 
it is factual--100 percent of the U.S. debt from today through the next 
30 years is demographics. Huh? What are demographics? This is your 
country's leadership. It is demographics. We got old as a society and 
we didn't set aside the resources to keep our promises.
  Since 1990, U.S. fertility has been falling. I won't use the word 
collapsing, but last year, we estimate, 2023, 1.63 percent, maybe 1.62 
percent fertility. Meaning, the United States now has fewer children 
than much of Europe.

  Now, tell me how I build a pay-as-you-go system to keep our promises 
to those who paid into Social Security, to those who paid into 
Medicare? Remember, the Medicare taxes you pay only cover about 38, 40 
percent. Why don't we do this right now?
  Social Security does not add to the U.S. debt technically but paying 
back the money that was borrowed from the Social Security trust fund 
does. There is some $3 trillion that has been borrowed out, and for the 
last few years, every month, there are not enough tax collections 
coming in on the FICA tax, that 12.4 percent, to make the payments to 
Social Security recipients.
  I want you just to visualize this. Every month, Social Security says: 
Hey, Treasury, I am holding a bunch of your bonds. You owe us some 
money and they cash them in, then Treasury goes and borrows money and 
pays interest for that borrowed money.
  Social Security doesn't create the debt, but Treasury does because 
the Treasury has to go out and borrow money to pay back the money they 
have taken out of the Social Security trust fund.
  If you add it all up, plus interest--forgive me, I am partially doing 
this off the top of my head. I calculate maybe $6 trillion, 3-plus in 
principal, then over time the interest paid back is probably another 3.
  How many times have you had anyone just try to be honest about it? It 
is not Republican math. It is not Democrat math. It is just math to be 
avoided because we are terrified to tell our voters the truth because 
we have lied to them for so long.
  How many times have you had a Democrat go around here and say, what 
if we just tax rich people more? I have done entire presentations here 
and for those of us on the Republican side, if we just cut 
discretionary spending, damn it, I can come up with about $300 billion 
in discretionary that can be cut down. They will be screaming, but that 
is still 1 percent of GDP.
  For the Democrats, every tax hike they genuinely propose that could 
be executed, when adjusted for its economic effects, that would be 
about 1.5 percent of GDP. You have 1\1/2\ there on tax hikes, you got 1 
percent in cuts over here. It is a big 2\1/2\ percent, right? Right? It 
is 2\1/2\ percent. We are borrowing 7 percent of the entire economy 
this year.
  Madam Speaker, we are doing a great job. I guess part of my anger is, 
I love some of the people I work with here. They are smart. They care, 
but they run away from me when they see me coming because I want to 
talk about this stuff. This chart is the pie chart of America's 
spending.
  Do you see this number? Seventy-four percent is in the red. The red 
doesn't get a vote from a Member of Congress. That is on autopilot. It 
is called mandatory. It is earned benefits.

[[Page H4938]]

Some of the benefits you get because you are part of a certain Tribal 
group or you fall below a certain income, but this is earned.
  Do you see the blue? It is defense and nondefense. Every dime of 
defense is borrowed. Every dime of what we call nondefense 
discretionary is borrowed and a wedge of this over here is borrowed.
  When we say net interest, I have tried to explain the difference 
between net interest and gross interest. Net interest this year will be 
$892 billion. That is interest we pay to people out in the world: your 
pension fund, a nice family on the other side of the world, the union 
retirement fund over here. They buy U.S. debt.
  The other debt is what we owe to the trust funds. We have borrowed 
the money from the trust funds, but we still have to pay it back. We 
still have to pay interest. It is one of the great cons we do in our 
budgeting here. Well, gross interest is only $890 billion, Schweikert; 
why do you keep going around saying $1.2 trillion?
  Interest just this year is because of that other chunk of interest we 
have got to pay, and we are going to have to pay back the principal. 
The same as I just explained on how Social Security works.
  Once again, if you are a Member of Congress and you are doing a 
townhall or putting out something and you are not showing this chart, 
you are not helping our brothers and sisters across the country 
understand how serious this election is, how serious putting people in 
office that will stop pandering to your need for a dopamine hit in your 
brain, but maybe own a calculator.
  Once again, I can make this math work. You can't pretend that we can 
tax rich people, and we can just cut our way there. You may have to do 
a bit of both of those, but it is policy.
  I have done presentation after presentation after presentation on how 
you could crash healthcare, how you could adopt artificial intelligence 
to reduce the size of this government dramatically and still have 
better customer service. How the mechanics of talent-based immigration 
could actually grow the economy but shutting down the border--stop 
importing competition to our working poor, making our working poor 
poorer.
  You have got to think like an economist. The folks here want to talk 
down to you. They talk to you like you are a child and say, well, if we 
just did this, we would be fine. It doesn't work that way.
  We are now so upside down debt-wise that unless you do something that 
is holistic with lots of moving parts, none of the math works. We are 
uncomfortable telling that truth.
  Let's actually walk through a board I don't think I have ever shown 
before. Fiscal year 2024, here is where we are at to date. We have 
taken in $3.755 trillion.
  Do you see the red here? The red is the individual income tax. Your 
country is an income tax-based economic system where other countries 
may rely more on a value added tax, which is a really regressive tax 
and crushes the middle class.

                              {time}  1215

  The blue over here, when you start to look at that, we call it social 
insurance and retirement programs. It is Social Security. That is 
actually going out the door immediately, and we have to borrow some to 
cover it.
  The blue over here is actually corporate income taxes. Remember, the 
United States, back in about the late eighties, early nineties, changed 
much of the corporate tax structure when we started having 
passthroughs. Do you remember LLCs, subchapter S, partnerships, those 
things? Much of what is corporate activity in the United States flows 
through to that individual tax line.
  When you get the brain trust here that says we are going to raise 
corporate taxes, great, okay. Is that going to solve something?
  We are trying to vet the paper I got the math from, but we have a 
paper from about a year or year and a half ago that said, in the 2017 
tax reform we did, 67 percent of the corporate tax rate reduction went 
to wages.
  When you have someone from the left who runs around here saying we 
are going to raise corporate taxes, what they are doing is basically 
screwing over the working men and women of the country. That is how it 
works.
  When your wages go up, the old saying used to be it is inflation--
that doesn't get you anything--or it is productivity because you built 
a tax code that said we can afford to buy the next better piece of 
equipment, build better processes, build better supply chains, become 
more productive, and workers get part of that.
  Part of that productivity also is a tax system that maximizes 
economic vitality. Economic growth is moral. If we want to have fewer 
poor people in society, if we want to close income inequality, don't do 
it through transfer payments. We have data over data that many of the 
transfer payments, at the end of the decade, make people poorer because 
you dissociate their lives from being part of the society, part of 
work. The secret is having an economy that grows, that needs them. 
Getting economics right is moral.
  This is the reality. Do you see these tiny little wedges there? That 
is excise taxes. Some will think of it as tariffs, when you actually 
see some miscellaneous. Society is functionally financed by income tax. 
This is FICA, and this is corporate.
  Mark my words--and I will probably be long gone from this place--
because of what the Democrats are doing policy-wise and, honestly, the 
Republicans' unwillingness to actually do tough things, at the end of 
this decade, we are all going to be having a discussion of having a 
national VAT, a value-added tax, just like the rest of the world.
  All of the crap discussion that it is not progressive enough, that it 
is regressive and hurts working men and women, working men and women 
are going to get their heads kicked in because it is the only way to 
start to confiscate enough resources from people.
  Let's actually talk through and knock down some of the craziness that 
keeps being said around here. This is a brand-new chart for me: U.S. 
fiscal dynamics, now and then. We are going to go way back. Let's 
actually do from 1984 to 2023 and then current.
  Our tax revenues are up. We are taking in more receipts. Technically, 
they are not revenues. Revenues are what you earn. Receipts are what 
you confiscate. That is just a little bit of tax lingo there.
  You see tax receipts are up, but our spending is way up. When you see 
the white line over here, deficits, it is just basically the derivative 
of tax receipts are up, but we are spending faster than those receipts 
are going up. Therefore, you get a deficit.
  If someone says those 2017 tax cuts--no, tax receipts are up. I have 
another chart I am going to show. Corporate tax rates, corporate tax 
collections--don't think about the rate; it is about what you take in--
are actually above the mean.
  How much of this spending is the Orwellian-named Inflation Reduction 
Act? The Democrats lost their mind when we did 2017 tax reform. 
Remember, it was actually a few trillion dollars--$5 trillion, $5.5 
trillion--but functionally $4 trillion of it was also covered, direct 
taxes.
  We just moved things around to maximize productivity. It was about 
getting companies to move back to the United States, move their 
organizations, their intellectual property, the things they were making 
money on, getting them back to the United States. We had to become 
competitive in the world again.
  The other $1.5 trillion, the Democrats say that is the driver of the 
debt. No, it is not. It turns out it wasn't $1.5 trillion. The latest 
data is almost $900 billion of that has been covered by economic 
growth. Yet when the Democrats controlled this place in the last 
session, they dropped $2 trillion in subsidies, handouts, to big 
business. All of that is borrowed money.
  When was the last time that a reporter actually covered this fairly? 
When was the last time you met a reporter who owned a calculator? The 
public has no understanding of what is going on out there.
  I keep trying to provide this chart over and over. This is U.S. 
Government revenues. The sign should say ``receipts.'' This is 
mislabeled. Green is individual income taxes. Remember, we are mostly 
an individual income tax country. When you see spikes like this,

[[Page H4939]]

this is the dot-com bubble of 1999, 2000, 2001, the dot-coms. That is 
capital gains.
  This spike here is actually people were getting lots of COVID money, 
so it was direct spend from the Federal Government. We borrowed it, 
gave it to them, and they had to pay taxes on it.
  This line here, the blue, is FICA taxes. That is your Social Security 
and Medicare--very stable.
  Down here, this is corporate taxes. Do you see the line? Remember, 
this is the regime of the new corporate tax rate since 2017. Tax 
receipts, the actual tax dollars, are up. It is above the mean of the 
last couple of decades.
  We need vitality, dynamism. There are lots of things we can do 
policy-wise. The United States is becoming a bit more of an oligopoly. 
Many of our businesses are becoming far too big and far too 
protectionist. That is government. Government likes big organizations 
because they are easier to manipulate to get them to do what they want. 
Here is a subsidy, wink, wink, nod, nod. Engage in our social policy, 
engage in our political policy, and we are going to hand you billions.

  Instead, what you do is tax reform for everyone. Knife fight, battle 
it out, the best product, the most dynamic company, the one who moves 
the fastest and most innovative wins. That is the way a market economy 
is supposed to work.
  Instead, now our brothers and sisters on the left here go behind 
these microphones and use: Our industrial policy is this. Our planned 
economy is this.
  I keep waiting for them to build a 
5-year plan and hold up little red cards. If you don't get that 
reference, go look it up.
  This is the driver of the debt. Remember, I showed tax receipts are 
up, but our spending is up more. Where is that spending? It is in what 
we call mandatory.
  In many ways, this isn't Republican or Democratic. It is what we are 
as a society. We calculate in about 10 years, 22 to 23 percent of our 
population will be 65 and up. The politics will weaponize that very 
sentence I just gave, but it is math. It is what we are. It is 
demographics. We are having and have had, for the last couple of 
decades, dramatically fewer children. We got older. If we tell the 
truth about that, we can look at what the cost driver is. Then, folks 
come in and say: Well?
  Almost all the cost driver is interest and healthcare costs. A decade 
from now, when the Social Security trust fund is gone, do we backfill 
it? The brain trust here will say: Let's do this. We will do the ACA, 
ObamaCare, the Republican alternative, or Medicare for All.
  Those are financing bills. Once again, if our body here would tell 
the truth, that is who gets subsidized and who has to pay. They don't 
change what we pay.
  Technology, cures, disruptions are better ways to do it, but we keep 
much of the technology that could crash the price of healthcare here 
illegal because there are armies of lobbyists in our hallways who don't 
want to compete against your ability to use technology to keep yourself 
and your family healthier.
  I have been able to attach a handful of AI and algorithm bills to 
provide customer service at the IRS, the VA, or other things, and then 
we have gotten hate from the government employees unions.
  The fact of the matter is, it is moral. It would be better customer 
service for our constituents. It would be faster, better, and cheaper. 
The fact of the matter is, there is no pension with it.
  There are solutions that are not tax or cut and burn. It is a policy. 
This place won't engage in the policy because we are afraid. We are 
protectionists. We are protectionists of the government bureaucracies 
and incumbent business models.
  Is that Republican or Democratic? It is math. Not going to bother you 
with that.
  Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Maloy). The gentleman from Arizona has 
23 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Speaker, for those trying to take down my 
words, I am sorry for talking so fast.
  Tax revenues are projected to be billions of dollars. Once again, I 
want to make the point that individual income taxes are projected to be 
up dramatically. Payroll taxes are up fairly substantially. Corporate 
income taxes are fairly healthy. Other types of receipts are also up.
  Where I really want to get back to is trying to make this point, and 
then we are going to do some actual tax history.
  This is from the CBO, Congressional Budget Office. This is not 
Republican or Democratic. It is math. One hundred percent of the next 
30 years of debt is healthcare and interest, and then, in 10 years, if 
we backfill Social Security. The rest of the budget is calculated to 
have an almost $9 trillion positive balance.
  When was the last time this place actually was willing to have one of 
the most difficult discussions? About a month, month and a half ago, 
the Joint Economic economists on the Republican side took the leap and 
told the truth. We wrote a detailed report about demographics, tax 
policy, maximizing economic growth. Then we talked about health.
  This is where I get the crap kicked out of me for telling the truth. 
Obesity in the detailed line item--and we spent months and months 
working on these numbers and vetting them--could be as high as $9.1 
trillion of additional healthcare costs over the 10 years.
  Having a society where we are about to have the fifth year in a row 
where prime-age males are dying younger, is that moral? Having a 
society where we calculate, in 3 to 4 years, 50 percent of America will 
be obese, is that moral?
  What we do in the farm bill, what we do in nutrition support, and 
what we do in trying to have a healthier society, is that Republican or 
Democratic?
  I often accuse my Democratic friends of wanting to engage in policy 
to maintain people's misery, where others, at least myself, want to 
cure the misery. I want to end the misery, cure diseases, move the 
types of investment but also the policies so the FDA can use technology 
to bring cures to market faster. We have a whole portfolio of these 
ideas. Not one of those was a tax. Not one of those was a major cut.
  We calculate that 16 percent of all U.S. healthcare, $600 billion, is 
people not staying on their statin or taking their insulin improperly 
or their calcium inhibitors so they are having a stroke.
  There is a 99-cent pill bottle cap that beeps at you, and I can't get 
a damn hearing on that for years. These are simple ideas that could 
crash the price of healthcare.

                              {time}  1230

  Our society is dying. In 15 years, we calculate that we have more 
deaths than births. Oh, but that doesn't work in the next election. 
That is not what I am going to use in my propaganda. The attack ads 
that are going to come at you, Schweikert, well, we are going to say 
you mentioned the words Social Security and Medicare, but we are going 
to lie that you are one of the few idiots here trying to find a 
mathematical way to save it. This place is absolutely immoral.
  I have done this before; I have tried to walk through the actual cost 
to the poor on what we are doing at our border. I will do this quickly. 
You are the individual or the couple who didn't finish high school. 
What you sell is your talents. You are willing to go out and hang 
drywall, you work yourself off as hard as you can, and then you get a 
White House that engages in border policy where millions of people with 
the same skill set as you have come in, and they consume the housing 
stock. You want to know why the lowest tiers, the least expensive 
housing has had some of the highest inflation, why they can't find a 
place to live, and now their wages are going down because you are 
competing against millions of people with the same skill set. The 
cruelty of the current border policy crushes the working poor.
  Can we have a discussion like economists instead of ``Well, you are 
immoral, you want to . . . `' No. Then on the flip side, we have entire 
charts that talk about how talent-based immigration--and talent could 
be a skilled carpenter or synthetic biologist--grows the economy.
  I will argue a number of the economic policies I propose I cannot 
make work math wise unless we actually--because in the 1970s, 1980s the 
world fought for hydrocarbons. Last decade

[[Page H4940]]

we fought for rare earths. I can build you the math model that says 
this decade and the next three decades, we are going to fight for smart 
people, the entire world. We educate people here, and then we send them 
away. Are we out of our minds?
  Madam Speaker, I am going to skip a bunch of the boards and just try 
to close this out with just a couple more. This is 2023. Total outlays, 
total spending, $6.1 trillion; total receipts, $4.4 trillion. What is 
that? $1.7 trillion borrowed. This year, borrowing is going to be about 
two-and-a-quarter, and this is a time when the economy is doing 
remarkably well. Now, it is subsidized, so it is basically a sugar 
high, but it is still doing well.
  Now, our problem is, in 2023, gross interest was about $700 billion. 
This year, we are heading toward $1.14 trillion, $1.16 trillion, but 
this differential here, almost every dime of that $1.7 trillion 
borrowing, the growth on it--now, much of it is Inflation Reduction 
Act, the shortfall from tax reform, but we have never been given the 
run to show how it is growing tax receipts. I am showing you even 
corporate tax receipts where the different rates are up.
  It turns out it is healthcare and interest now. As we are moving back 
to more normalized interest--How many of you live in a fantasy world 
where you think interest rates are going back to 0? You realize the 
current interest rates on 10-year notes still aren't at historic norms 
when you take away the years of suppression on the rate.
  For my brothers and sisters on the left, who like to say, well, you 
gave away to rich people, today, the rich, as defined by you, pay a 
higher percentage of Federal income taxes than they did before. The 
Republican tax reform was more progressive than the previous Tax Code.
  When we get to some of the other charts, here is my chart showing 
that President Biden in the debate said something insane about covering 
Social Security. Let me see if I can find one. In 10 years, gross debt 
will be $56.8 trillion.
  However, here is one of the points I desperately want to make. 
Historically, when we have had very high marginal rates, we get 17.6, 
18, 18.2 percent of GDP in taxes. When we have had very low marginal 
rates, we get 17.6, 18.2 percent of the economy in taxes because the 
economy changes in growth. When you look at it, the black line is 
receipts, revenue. The line above it is interest and healthcare.
  When our friends keep saying, well, we are going to tax the rich 
more. Great, but I have already shown you if every tax worked 
absolutely to its maximum efficiency, you get a point and a half, a 
percent of GDP, and we are borrowing 7 this year.
  We will make this the last one. Until we are actually willing to 
first have the same definitions of here is the drivers of debt, here is 
the innovations we are willing to bring into our society, this is our 
future, our future is just absolutely crushing, and it is percentages 
of GDP. We expect Social Security and Medicare outlays, as we start to 
head to the 30-year budget, 17.6 percent of the entire economy, where 
revenues are 6.3. Okay, no one has any idea what you are talking about. 
My basic point is, today through the next 30 years, it is demographics. 
It is mostly healthcare, and then the cost of financing that shortfall.
  Helping people live longer, live healthier, live freer of disease is 
moral. It isn't Republican moral, Democrat moral, it is just moral, and 
yet every piece of legislation I have brought here over the last few 
years can't get a hearing or gets shot down because the bureaucracy 
despises it. The interest groups care more about their money than they 
care about my 8-year-old's future.
  There is a path where the math can be made to work, but for everyone 
around here, you think there is a simple solution. My father used to 
have this great saying, for every complex problem, there is a simple 
solution. That is absolutely wrong. We will have to do complexity to 
save our future, save my retirement, save my children.
  We have put it on paper. We have done economic modeling; we have had 
multiple Ph.D. economists do the math. There is a way it works. Will 
this place step up and buy a calculator and put batteries in it and 
then sit down with those of us who want to save our future and make 
this another American century? Instead, we run around terrified from 
doing what is hard.
  Madam Speaker, thank you for the therapy session of letting me vent. 
I am going to bite my tongue from saying what I have to say, but I am 
going to throw one last thing. There are a number of people who watch 
these presentations on YouTube. Half the comments are bots, they are 
fake, they are Russian troll farms. Half the remaining half are people 
who care more about saying ideological insanity, but there is about a 
quarter of them that help, that actually have sometimes brilliant 
ideas, are engaged in saying, what if you did this, what if you looked 
at that? We are diving into ideas on things of consolidation, things 
that are mandatory. Those ideas actually came from the population that 
has been willing to watch these presentations over the years.
  One of my last great hopes is when I would do these economic 
presentations 5 years ago, 12 people would watch them. Today, I will 
have several hundred thousand. Maybe, just maybe, Democrats, 
Republicans, the people who are Independents are tired of being treated 
like children, and they are ready for us to start talking to them like 
honest brokers of policy.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mooney).
  Mr. MOONEY. May I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.


                   Tax Neutrality for Monetary Metals

  Mr. MOONEY. Madam Speaker, my constituents are getting crushed by 
inflation caused by out-of-control Washington spending, which reduces 
the purchasing power of their dollar.
  Many Americans turn to gold and silver for a better store of value, 
yet the IRS classifies gold and silver as ``collectibles'' alongside 
artwork and baseball cards, which subjects them to a punitive 28 
percent capital gains tax, despite the U.S. Constitution affirming gold 
and silver as money. The IRS does not let taxpayers deduct losses they 
suffer from holding U.S. dollars, so it is unfair to assess a capital 
gains tax when citizens hold gold and silver to protect against 
inflation.
  My legislation, H.R. 8279, the Monetary Metals Tax Neutrality Act, 
would end the Federal income taxation of gold, silver, and bullion, and 
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense measure.


Permanently Allow Localized Hiring Authority at Hazelton Federal Prison

  Mr. MOONEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to call on the Bureau of Prisons to 
permanently allow for localized hiring authority at the Hazelton 
Federal Prison in Preston County, West Virginia, in my district.
  The prison has struggled for years to fill critical staffing 
shortages, which has resulted in unsafe conditions for both 
correctional officers and inmates.
  I helped lead the charge for the authorization of retention bonuses 
at the facility and am pleased that the Bureau of Prisons has 
authorized local hiring to speed up the process and provide jobs for 
hardworking West Virginians.
  Prior to this authorization, applicants were required to apply 
through the Bureau of Prisons headquarters in Texas. This bureaucratic 
process slowed down and discouraged hiring. Local hiring authority has 
already resulted in a class of seven new officers, which are 
desperately needed at this facility, which doesn't have enough people 
there.
  I join the correctional officers' union in calling for this authority 
to be made permanent as the prison works to fill the 90-officer 
shortage.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________