[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 20, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H2186-H2191]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   TRUTH TELLING WITH MATH AND FACTS

  (Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. 
Schweikert of Arizona was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of 
the majority leader.)
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Ellzey). Then, we are going to actually do some actual math and facts.

                              {time}  1850


                Honoring Commander Bruce ``Puppy'' Fecht

  Mr. ELLZEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my honorable friend from Arizona 
whose crusade against the debt is a

[[Page H2187]]

true public service. He has spent countless hours in here educating the 
American people on the dangers of the debt for our country, and we 
should all be grateful. I thank him for this time.
  I also thank the folks here in the well who are working diligently to 
always take down the words that we say, take down our votes, and work 
day in and day out, allowing us to speak to the American people.
  As we are about to enter Memorial Day, I wanted to bring attention to 
someone that led me in my career in the Navy, that I fought with and 
remember fondly. His memorial service is going to be this Friday, so I 
would like to read his obituary and tell a quick story about a man that 
we all know and loved and adored.
  Bruce Fecht, born November 16, 1955, passed away March 16, 2025.
  Captain Bruce William Fecht, U.S. Navy, retired, a true American 
hero, passed away on March 16, 2025, at the age of 69. He was born in 
Missoula, Montana, to Robert William Fecht and Marjorie June Fehr.
  When he was a young boy, the family along with older sister Bobbi, 
moved to Spokane, Washington, where the family grew to include his two 
younger sisters, Rebecca and Brenda.
  He went to Mead High School, where he was a standout basketball 
player. He continued his education and basketball prowess at Spokane 
Community College, eventually completing his electrical engineering 
degree at the University of Washington.
  His first job at AT&T offered the comfort of a 9-to-5 routine, but it 
was the thrill of the flight that ultimately called him.
  Bruce pursued his dream of becoming a naval aviator, applying to and 
being accepted into AOCS in Pensacola, Florida. He was commissioned in 
1982, and 1 year later in 1983, he received his wings of gold in 
Beeville, Texas, marking the beginning of a distinguished career in the 
skies.
  For the next decade, Bruce, call sign Puppy, served with distinction 
in various squadrons, including VF-124 Gunslingers, VF-111 Sundowners, 
VF-126 Bandits, VF-1 Wolfpack, flying the iconic F-14A and F-14D 
Tomcats along with the T-2C, A-4E, and F-16N.
  He completed multiple deployments aboard aircraft carriers like the 
Carl Vinson, Ranger, and Enterprise.
  He also graduated from Navy Fighter Weapons School Adversary Course 
and earned a master of science degree in systems management from the 
University of Southern California.
  Most famously he was selected as an extra for the movie ``Top Gun,'' 
which was filmed on site in Miramar, and can be seen in the Top Gun 
photo used in the movie.
  His career was defined not only by his technical skills and unmatched 
piloting abilities but also by his leadership. After 14 years in the 
cockpit, he transitioned to staff roles, including serving as the Pol-
Mil officer at U.S. European Command in Stuttgart, Germany. There, he 
played a key role in operations in the Middle East, focusing on Israel, 
Lebanon, and Syria.
  He returned to the cockpit in 1999, joining the VF-14 Tophatters as 
executive officer, where I knew him, and, later, commanding officer.
  During his leadership, the squadron earned numerous awards, including 
the Clifton Trophy as the Navy's top fighter squadron, the Battle 
Efficiency award, and the Safety ``S'' Award. Under his command, the 
Tophatters were among the first to conduct air strikes on terrorist 
sites in Afghanistan following the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
  His leadership during the onset of the global war on terror left an 
indelible mark on both his squadron and the larger Navy community. 
After leading the squadron through its transition to the Super Hornet, 
he was selected for an executive fellowship with the Hoover Institution 
at Stanford, where he shared his vast knowledge and insight with the 
next generation of leaders. He completed his career as commanding 
officer of VX-9, the Navy's premier test and evaluation squadron.
  His career was a testament to his love of flying, his unwavering 
dedication to service, and his profound impact on all who worked with 
him.
  His sense of adventure, intellectual curiosity, and deep care for his 
fellow servicemembers will forever be remembered by those whose lives 
he touched.
  Bruce was a man of faith, and, interestingly, in the last 2 years of 
his life, he earned a master's degree in Catholic theology from 
Franciscan University of Steubenville. He planned to retire from 
General Atomics and serve as a chaplain. He attended St. Ann Catholic 
Church in Ridgecrest, California, and enjoyed serving meals and singing 
in the choir.
  Bruce will be remembered for his great sense of humor and his 
generous heart. He was a faithful son, wonderful brother, and a fun 
uncle to his nephews and nieces.
  His personal relationship with Jesus Christ took him through his last 
difficult journey with the strength and confidence that he could trust 
his Lord with the outcome of his life. We will miss him dearly but look 
forward to the day we will be reunited in Heaven.
  Bruce will be remembered for his great sense of humor and his 
generous heart. He was a faithful son, wonderful brother, and a fun 
uncle to his nephews and nieces. His personal relationship with Jesus 
Christ took him through his last difficult journey with strength and 
confidence that he could trust his Lord with the outcome of his life.
  Bruce is survived by his sisters, Bobbi, Rebecca and Brenda; numerous 
nieces and nephews; cousins; aunts; friends; and a lot of shipmates.
  So now I am going to tell you about that little story I was telling 
you about, Puppy Fecht. Under his steady hand, Fighter Squadron 14 
embarked on what was meant to be a routine deployment aboard the USS 
Enterprise in April of 2001. As we all know, history had different 
plans. This deployment, while routine at the beginning, was set to be 
special before anybody stepped foot on the ship.

  As it was, Fighter Squadron 14's final deployment with the F-25 
Tomcat marked the end of an era. Once this mission was complete, the F-
14 would be retired, and in its place the squadron would transition to 
the F-18 Super Hornet.
  With both excitement and a bit of sadness at the loss of an aircraft 
that the squadron had known for so long, they were off. But just like 
every deployment under Puppy's leadership, his command was ready for 
any mission at any moment or any call to action.
  On September 8, 2001, the USS Enterprise departed the Arabian Gulf, 
bound for home with a scheduled port call in South Africa for the first 
time in about 40 years. Just days later, while still south of the 
Arabian Peninsula, those aboard the USS Enterprise watched in horror as 
the tragedy of 9/11 unfolded.
  In that moment, Commander Fecht's calm, visionary leadership shone 
through. He made sure his squadron was prepared not just for what came 
next but for whatever would follow. That readiness was tested when the 
call came.
  On the eve of the first strikes of Operation Enduring Freedom in 
early October, Puppy assembled his team: Monty ``Ash'' Ashliman, 
Marcell ``Opus'' Padilla, and Art ``Kato'' Delacruz, their target a 
surface-to-air missile site northeast of Kabul, nearly 1,200 miles from 
the USS Enterprise. 1,200 miles; that is at least three refuelings.
  It was a mission demanding precision, resilience, and courage. It was 
a nighttime operation deep into enemy territory, requiring multiple in-
flight refuelings and flawless coordination with allied formations. At 
the time, we didn't have any other air bases that we could go to in 
Afghanistan.
  Commander Fecht led his team with the same unshakeable calm that had 
become his signature, guiding them through enemy fire and back home for 
a sunrise recovery on the USS Enterprise. That is leadership. That is 
courage.
  Puppy's strength wasn't just in his command of the skies. It was in 
the command of the hearts of those who served under him. Those who 
served alongside him speak of his infectious laughter, his unshakeable 
calm, and his belief that even in the most trying of times, there was 
room for joy and comradery. His unique ability to diffuse tension with 
humor and build trust through unyielding confidence made Fighter 
Squadron 14 not just a team, but a family.
  He understood that a leader's spirit resonates throughout the entire 
crew, and because of that, his squadron was not only ready, they were 
resilient.

[[Page H2188]]

They were prepared for the worst and delivered the best. Commander 
Fecht led his squadron with dignity, courage, and an unyielding 
commitment to our Nation. He brought his entire team home, every single 
one of them.
  That is the mark of a leader who not only commands respect but 
inspires it. He embodied the warrior spirit, the never-quit attitude, 
and the deep sense of duty that defines the very best of our Armed 
Forces in this country.
  Today, I am proud to tell you just one of many stories of Bruce 
``Puppy'' Fecht, and we honor him not just for what he did but for how 
he did it, with courage, with conviction, and with a spirit that lifted 
up everyone around him.
  His legacy lives on in the hearts of those who served alongside him 
and the freedom that he so selflessly defended. Great American patriots 
like Commander Bruce ``Puppy'' Fecht will always ensure our Nation is 
secure, and they will also ensure the next generation of great leaders 
are trained and ready to carry that responsibility forward to wherever 
the next calling may be.
  So fair winds and following seas, shipmate.
  I would like to add, as we debate these bills on the floor here, that 
this weekend is Memorial Day where we remember those who have given 
their lives, that we may speak freely down here, that we may debate 
with our colleagues, hopefully in civil tone and purpose but 
understanding that this is the last great hope on Earth. With friends 
like my friend from Arizona, we will make it an even better place to 
live.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas. He always 
has some amazing stories.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight is going to be a little tricky because I am 
going to try and weave three major subjects together. Some of it is 
going to be really technical. Some of it will be slightly sarcastic, 
but the math here is really important.
  I am going to do it backwards from how I originally thought because I 
want to hit a couple of things that are remarkably important.
  I have come behind this microphone, heaven knows how many times and 
shown the charts. We are borrowing $72,000 a second. We could borrow as 
much as $2.3 trillion this year. I am going to show some other things 
in here such as Moody's, and why they downgraded us, and show some of 
the things that are going on.
  On occasion I get this: What are your solutions? Then we always try 
to come in and say: Here is the technology chute where you can disrupt 
the cost of healthcare. Here is the technology where you could change 
the price of delivering government services.
  We started almost a year ago in my capacity on the Ways and Means 
Committee, chairing the Oversight Subcommittee.
  I now chair the Joint Economic Committee, and I thank Mr. Speaker 
because he helped me actually have the capacity of hiring a Ph.D. in 
healthcare economics.

                              {time}  1900

  We have dropped last week--that is a term where we put in something 
called a ``hopper.'' That is actually where you file your piece of 
legislation--two pieces of legislation where the preliminary scores are 
almost $2 trillion in savings over 10 years.
  As we are having this discussion of debt and deficits, can you extend 
the tax policy? Can you do other things? It is not going to come from 
traditional austerity. The fact of the matter is that math doesn't 
work. You are going to do it through policy. You are going to fix 
policy, and people just stare at you like you are an idiot when you try 
to explain these things.
  Let's walk through our big one. This is an occasion where I promise 
you that there is so much money involved. There is a reason other 
Members of Congress have been unwilling to do what we knew was a 
problem.
  A few weeks ago, I came here with the MedPAC reports. I don't know if 
anyone ever bothers to read them, but you go through there, and it 
should light your hair on fire. For the last year, The Wall Street 
Journal has done a series of articles basically showing hundreds of 
billions of dollars of waste, fraud, misallocation, just misalignment 
incentives in something we call Medicare Advantage.
  Walk with me through. In the early 2000s, there was this concept of 
managed care that if we could help our brothers and sisters with their 
earned benefit in Medicare, saying that we have fee-for-service, but 
you have to pay all of these copays. What would happen if you could 
align the incentives saying that we want insurers to manage a portfolio 
of access to healthcare, but within that, those insurers will actually 
make their money by helping you be healthier?
  The model, which started in 2005--many of you know it as Medicare 
Advantage. You see the ads, and that is actually part of the problem--
was supposed to come in at 95 percent of fee-for-service because this 
was a system where you were going to get better quality care, get taken 
care of, and the insurers would make their profit by helping their 
population become healthier.
  Mr. Speaker, it turns out that if you actually read those MedPAC 
reports--these are the auditors who do the modeling, and we are talking 
something that is almost a trillion dollars in spending last year, so 
we are talking about something that is stunning amounts of money--last 
year, Medicare Advantage came in at 120 percent of fee-for-service.
  Mr. Speaker, just that delta, 120 percent to the 95 percent that it 
was envisioned to be, that right there is $100 billion a year. The fact 
of the matter is if you have been following the series of articles--I 
think ProPublica--The Wall Street Journal has spent tremendous 
resources doing it--it will curl your hair.
  Then you have been seeing the most recent stories about the potential 
criminal acts. I think last Thursday, a story broke of actual 
criminal--not civil; criminal--coming.
  Is it time for us as Members of Congress to talk about something 
which is often dangerous because when you are taking on a system that 
has trillions of dollars flowing through it, you have to understand 
that there will be ads in my district that are going to beat the ever-
living crap out of me. It is the job. You have to tell the truth, know 
the math, and come with actual solutions.
  Mr. Speaker, we went back and said: How do you design a system where 
you make sure the benefits, the promises, are there for seniors because 
it is an earned benefit? How do you make sure that you are doing 
nothing--nothing--to cut that access to healthcare, to cut that access 
to quality healthcare, but you align the incentives to go back to the 
original vision where it is about helping those seniors who are on 
Medicare Advantage become healthier, and the morality of that.
  We had to do a number of things in design, so we introduced 
legislation. This was the preliminary score from the Joint Economic 
Committee economists: $1.76 trillion of savings over the 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is it is only about 10 percent of 
the cost of the program over those 10 years, so you start to understand 
the scale of the cost of this. We believe--understand, this is only 
conversation between economists, and I was not on the call--that the 
preliminary score right now is $1.84 trillion coming from the people 
that will score the legislation.
  That would make it probably, from everything we can guess, the single 
biggest reduction in spending in a single bill in probably U.S. 
history. Does that give you a sense? When you have people talking about 
waste and fraud and misalignment and bad acts, this is the ginormous 
granddaddy of it all.
  It is not that big of a bill. It is a little complex. It is really 
scary because, as you know around here, we are not ever supposed to 
talk about these things, particularly Medicare, but this is not 
Medicare as you think about it. This is the insurers who are paid to 
actually manage your care and help you be healthier. Yet, you have this 
series of stories saying how they have been taking advantage of the 
system.
  There is a way to make this work. Even the MedPAC report says that we 
support Medicare Advantage and want it to stay, but we are going to 
have to fix these misalignments. The economists have been modeling the 
savings.
  Mr. Speaker, what happens if you have a moment here where these sorts 
of dollars in savings--and this is going

[[Page H2189]]

to tie in, Mr. Speaker, to talking about what Moody's did last week, 
talking about how this and our talent-based immigration bill, those two 
bills together, probably score at $2 trillion of savings, and they 
would be good for the economy. They would be good for healthcare. They 
would be good for people to be healthier. They would help grow the 
economy.
  This is an example of getting policy right to actually take on a 
small sliver of the debt because, remember, our baseline debt for the 
next 10 years, we are going to borrow another $22 trillion. Even though 
this number is massive, it is still just a fraction of what is coming 
at us.

  Mr. Speaker, I am trying to make the point again. Our legislation, 
which we call Better Medicare, has been introduced. It is in the 
process of being scored. Yet, when you start to see these sorts of 
dollars--and, yes, it would change the current spending projection by 
about 10 percent to 10.7 percent according to the Joint Economic 
Committee economists. Yet, you already had the MedPAC saying it is 
already 25 percent more expensive than was the original model.
  It gives you a sense of we are making reforms, but we are just trying 
to align the incentives. We have done some things to actually help the 
insurers be able to have sort of automatic enrollment, but you can 
choose to opt out for a longer period of time so that the investment 
for that senior who chooses that Medicare Advantage plan to be given 
the services to be healthier. Yet, also with that healthier, the 
provider benefits by having a healthier population.
  We have been trying to just think like economists instead of so often 
what you hear behind these microphones because something I have teased 
about--I actually talked about this a couple of weeks ago--in Nature 
Human Behaviour, there was an academic article. This is one of those 
geeky ones that is peer reviewed, all of those things: ``Computational 
analysis of U.S. congressional speeches reveals a shift from evidence 
to intuition.''
  They basically took 240 years of House floor speeches, ran AI across 
them, and said: Guess what has happened? These speeches around here no 
longer talk about facts, about data, or about math. We now tell our 
feelings.
  The problem is, if you have complex problems, your feelings aren't 
going to help us fix complex problems. It turns out that math does.
  This is what we have been trying to do on this reform of Medicare 
Advantage. We want the system to work, but we can't allow $1.76 
trillion over 10 years of fraud and bad acts.
  If you don't believe me, get in front of your computer right now and 
look up some of the articles of the potential indictments, the criminal 
activities that are coming. Also, look up The Wall Street Journal 
series that actually talks about people being scored as sicker, and 
they don't have the diseases. They don't receive services. They are not 
on those medications. Yet, you and I as taxpayers are paying for it, 
and we are borrowing the money to do it.

                              {time}  1910

  Please, if you are a staffer watching this, if you are an American 
that actually cares about us getting our act together and doing things 
better, if you are a Member of Congress, I know doing big things around 
here is terrifying. We don't have a choice anymore.
  If anyone actually read the Moody's report that was put out last 
Thursday, they make a couple points that should scare the crap out of 
us.
  In 9 budget years, they believe about 9 percent of the entire economy 
in that year will be borrowed by the Federal Government. That $3.8 
trillion will be the borrowing amount in 2035, and that is just a 
baseline.
  The reason we often don't tell the truth, the reason we avoid it is 
because almost all this growth of this borrowing is interest and 
Medicare. It turns out it is really not Republican or Democrat; it is 
demographics. We are so busy trying to get elected next time, we need 
something to blame them, and they want to blame us.
  If you stand up here and try to actually fix problems, you will get 
the crap kicked out of you, but at least you are trying to do the right 
thing. This is what you are hired to do on this job. It is not pander 
to your voters, but tell them the truth and try to fix things.
  I can't tell you how many speeches I hear behind these microphones 
where people will tell you the problem over and over. They will never 
spend a year writing a bill, putting about 100 hours in to it with 
academics, with Ph.D.'s, and healthcare. Experts from the industry put 
together a bill that says: This will work. This will make things 
better.
  Mr. Speaker, here is a philosophical thought I want everyone to think 
about. The United States just got downgraded by the third major credit 
rating agency. Did you know there are 18 States that have a higher 
credit rating than the United States Government right now? Eighteen 
States have a higher credit rating, yet every dime a Member of Congress 
will vote on, every dime of discretionary, nondefense discretionary, as 
we call it, is borrowed money. Every dime of defense is borrowed money.
  About $400 billion, I believe, last year of what we call mandatory 
spending, the formulaic earned benefits, things of that nature, is 
borrowed money. Last year, for every dollar we took in in tax receipts, 
we spent $1.39, and much of that money we are sending to States.
  My State of Arizona, we do some things actually really well. Our 
Medicaid system called AHCCCS is actually remarkably well run, except 
for some of the fraud. I am going to touch on that. We haven't built 
the models to catch it faster because we are not actually incentivized.
  Now, we also play incredible games where we use a provider tax. We 
actually make money for the general fund more than is actually spent on 
healthcare. One of the great scams we are trying to fix right now is 
what happens when the washing machine is actually where you are padding 
State budgets instead of taking care of healthcare, but that will get 
protests.
  Eighteen States have higher credit ratings than we do. It is just an 
interesting thought experiment. How about if I told you that, I think 
it is as of yesterday, either 12 or 13 countries can sell a 10-year 
bond cheaper than the United States. Greece today can sell a 10-year 
bond cheaper than the United States.
  If any of you are paying attention, remember there is this concept of 
interest fragility. One of our greatest threats to this country is our 
ability to finance this debt. Today, both the 20-year and 30-year bond 
went over a touch 5 percent. We showed actually a couple months ago 
that a single point of interest on U.S. debt over 10 years came in at 
like $3.3 trillion of additional interest.

  Just a small movement of interest rate is bigger than everything we 
are debating here, but we are not going to tell you that. A, because it 
would require math; B, it would require facts; and C, it might actually 
mean someone has to do something.
  There is an economist at Bloomberg, Anna Wong, who is truly freaky 
smart. I have had the opportunity and the honor. She came and spent 
part of a day with my Joint Economic Committee economists. She has been 
at the Federal Reserve. She has been at the White House. She is one of 
those people that is just intimidating on how she is able to calculate 
the world. She actually was looking at our reconciliation budget. She 
says that if we will do just a couple policy things, it is neutral in 
cost. It balances out. That is the point I am standing here for.
  We cannot allow the taxes to go up on working people in this country. 
Well, right there that is $3.1 trillion. How are we going to offset it?
  It turns out if you take a look at--and this is just from Anna Wong's 
analysis. If you are a really geeky, you can get this on your Bloomberg 
terminal, all six people in Washington that have a Bloomberg terminal. 
They are really expensive, but I actually need it for what we do.
  If the tariffs what they are producing, some of the DOGE offsets, it 
turns out if we will incorporate some of this policy, we can make this 
budget neutral. That is actually often part of my request for the 
leadership, for the committee chairs, for those of us in Ways and 
Means, we need to start actually pulling out our calculators and 
thinking this through. How do we do these things so we can stabilize 
the economy, maximize economic growth,

[[Page H2190]]

but not be adding to the debt? There is math that does it. Will anyone 
actually read the documents?
  We actually start to walk through this. We are actually trying to 
build models right now on trying to see what is coming in in custom 
duties. That is the tariffs. What is that offsetting? You will see me 
over the coming weeks with a couple of charts and start saying: Okay, 
here is what we have to plug into our models. For everyone who has been 
whining around here, here is your math problem. I wish they would start 
the whining with telling the truth on math and facts before telling 
anecdotes and stories. Remember, I just pointed out to you the 140 
years analysts of the speeches here in Congress, how they have become 
now about feelings instead of facts because we can manipulate you with 
telling anecdotal stories.
  This simple chart here--see the nice coins? We stole this from 
someone else. Baseline is we are going to spend $86 trillion over the 
next 10 years. All we are talking about trying to save is $2 trillion 
out of that $86 trillion. Are you telling me we can't get $2 trillion 
out of $86 trillion over 10 years?
  This is what is causing the emotional meltdown here because this 
place only cares about one thing, and that is the money. Spend it, 
spend it, spend it, and basically screw over people's retirement and my 
kids. I have a 2\1/2\-year-old and 9-year-old. When my 2\1/2\-year-
old--yes, I know. My wife and I adopted some kids. It is the greatest 
thing we ever did. When my 2\1/2\-year-old is basically 23, 24, every 
single tax in America has to be doubled to maintain baseline spending.
  I have done presentation after presentation where I have come here 
with the actual charts using Democrat economists showing that every tax 
hike the Democrats have proposed on the wealthy--capital gains, 
income--the entire plethora produces about 1.5 percent of GDP. All the 
austerity, the cuts on our side, accounts for 1 percent of GDP. That is 
a big 2.5 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to borrow about 7.3 percent of the economy 
this year. I showed you a chart a little while ago that Moody's has us 
in 9 budget years borrowing 9 percent of the economy.
  Does anyone see a math problem? The rhetoric here, the moving of the 
mouth, doesn't match what is on the calculator. We make crap up. This 
is the baseline fact. Baseline, we are set to spend $86 trillion over 
the next 10 years, and all we are trying to do is reduce $2 trillion.

                              {time}  1920

  I think we should reduce dramatically more, but I think you can do it 
through policy, the adoption of technology, and the alignment of 
incentives, and we can make the delivery of government services work.
  When only 31 percent of the phone calls at the IRS get answered, are 
we doing our job? You do realize there is technology that would fix 
that, but that would anger the union of the government employees there. 
There are these barriers where you have armies of lobbyists walking up 
and down these hallways, and the inefficiency, that waste and fraud, is 
their profit model.
  Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the spending growth--we are not supposed 
to tell people this, but it is the math. You can't do policy unless you 
are willing to tell the truth about the math. Eighty percent of the 
spending growth over the next decade is Social Security, Medicare, and 
interest. The interest is now scaring the crap out of us because there 
is this concept called term premium.
  As the Ray Dalios and these people who are the billionaire experts 
are saying: China is in the market. Germany is in the market. The 
United States is bingeing on debt. There is almost not enough savings 
in the world to finance the scale of borrowing, and much of that 
borrowing is driven because of demographics. The entire industrialized 
world got old. We have a shortage of young people. I think the math is, 
in 9 budget years, 23 percent of America is 65 and up.
  Are we doing the things to maximize automation and growth so we can 
have productivity and continue to afford and provide the very services 
we promised? No, that would require math, thinking, and policy. It is 
not good storytelling, is it, Mr. Speaker?
  Look, it is also one of the reasons I was so enraged about the 
intellectual laziness, I thought, of the Senate. Look, this is where I 
am being a bit sarcastic, if not mean. The House is not perfect. There 
are a number of things I am unhappy with. Leadership still doesn't have 
my vote on it until I get some agreements that we are able to move 
policy to start changing some of these numbers, but I have shown up 
with the policy. I am not just moving my mouth. We put it on paper, and 
we introduced them as bills. Now, look at the charts of the Senate's 
unwillingness to actually put policy into their budget reconciliation.
  The reason we have to demonstrate a level of fiscal discipline--if 
you care about poor people, if you care about economic growth, if you 
care about my kids, if you care about your retirement, and if you care 
about what this government provides to society--we have to figure out 
how to pay for it.
  CBO says that when we finish this fiscal year, U.S. debt will be at 
$37.2 trillion. We have to take to market this year in just 
refinancing--and I am not counting the short roll on the short end of 
the curve if you want to geek out. I think we are going to bring $9 
trillion to market. We are probably going to bring another $2 trillion, 
$2.3 trillion of new issuances, and will start to see where the United 
States is interest rate-wise.
  We start seeing Greece and other countries having substantially lower 
interest rates than us. That should set off an alarm. Do you want the 
money to go to the world's bond markets? You do realize that convincing 
the world debt markets that we are creditworthy, that we are being 
disciplined, that we are doing things--just that differential is more 
money than everything that is being debated here.

  When just 1 point of interest, 1 point differential here, is over $3 
trillion, that would solve a lot of this debate, wouldn't it? We can 
actually get those types of bond rates if we demonstrate to the world 
that we are creditworthy, disciplined, sensible, seeing long term, and 
actually understanding the honesty of our demographics.
  Instead, a bunch of the brain trusts here in Washington spend their 
time attacking Moody's for downgrading us and telling the truth. The 
problem is, if you actually read their document, it is the truth.
  For everyone out there who thinks balancing the budget and doing 
those things is simple, if you actually listen to folks from the last 
administration, this administration, the fantasy goal is to get to 3 
percent of debt to GDP, not 7, not, heaven forbid, in 9 budget years 
being at 9 percent. If you have 3 percent, you are more sustainable.
  You have to stop the fantasy of saying that we are going to cut it 
all with nondefense discretionary. Nondefense discretionary is 12 
percent of our spending. Almost everything you think of as government--
the Park Service, the FBI, the White House, our salaries here--that is 
in this 12 percent.
  Interest on the debt is every bit as big as all the nondefense 
discretionary. Actually, real interest on the debt, if you add up 
everything, is about $1.2 trillion this year. Remember, when we borrow 
money from the trust funds, we have to pay interest and pay it back.
  For those who are willing to run around here and are interested in 
having discussions on Medicaid--remember, Medicaid is the program that 
was designed for indigent populations, for women, children, infants. 
Yet, you hear almost protests from the left. Here is a $2.5 billion 
fraud in Medicaid in Arizona, where they exploited Tribal members, 
abused them, recruited them from our Tribal communities, put them in 
sober living homes, and bled the system for money. It took years 
because in a system that has the incentive where you are doing provider 
taxes and more of that money, raising the cost, it ends up in the 
general fund of your State. We should be ashamed that these types of 
scams were allowed to bleed money that should have been going to people 
who needed the help.
  Look, if we don't get an alignment of policy, the cost, and how these 
things can actually work, Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to continue 
to live in this world where our debates mean nothing here. They are 
just based on feelings, exploitation of our voters, telling them things 
that are actually mathematically not true. It is great politics, and 
right now, this place

[[Page H2191]]

seems to care so much more about winning the next election than the 
survival of this Republic and its economy, people, and prosperity.
  Is prosperity moral? There is a path where we can meet our 
obligations, help our brothers and sisters who need the help, and not 
scare the hell out of the very people who we turn to every single day 
because this government borrows $9 billion a day, $72,000 a second. 
Next year, it is going to be close to $82,000 a second. In 9 years, it 
is approaching $100,000 a second.
  Often, the discussion behind these microphones are things that set 
off your anger and the mathematical fantasies. If I get one more person 
who says: I saw on cable news this, so why don't you fix it? I say that 
I would be happy to fix it, but realize that the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting--I think that calculated to paying for 2 hours, 15 minutes 
of borrowing in an entire year.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. Speaker, it is the lack of understanding of the scale of this 
math. There is hope. There is a way you can make this work but not 
until the calculators are pulled out. The morality and the prosperity 
are the goals, and it is the moral thing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I apologize to anyone if I hurt their feelings. Send me 
a note. I will write you an apology note. I seem to write a lot of 
apology notes. I continue to be mad at both parties and almost everyone 
around here because we are not willing to do the math. There is a way 
we can make this work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________