[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 196 (Thursday, November 20, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H4857-H4861]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1840
FACING FISCAL REALITY
(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 have missed all of you. I don't know
if you missed me.
We are going to actually try something tonight, and some of what we
are going to do this evening is a little bit complex. It is going to be
a little bit thick, but we have double-checked and triple-checked the
math, which means that a number of our brothers and sisters will turn
their ears off almost immediately because, remember, Mr. Speaker, we
all work in a math-free zone.
A couple of items of order first. I thank--though I don't know if
they were screwing with me or having some fun. I think it is ``Forbes
Breaking News'' that took about 12 or 13 hours of these floor speeches
and put them up on YouTube. I have actually had a couple of people who
obviously don't have lives who have been watching them, and we have
been playing this game of: Here is the prediction, Schweikert, you made
over the last year. Here is what you have right, and here is what you
have wrong.
First, I got wrong my prediction on interest rates. I really thought
the 10-year bond would be closer to 5. It is at 4.1. However, things
like the U.S. getting downgraded, things like the semaglutides crashing
in price by the end of the year, we have actually gotten right.
The one thing I wish I had gotten wrong was the debt and deficit
projections. For the trolls out there who immediately say, ``Well,
there is all this spending in the tax bill,'' most of that hasn't
started yet. If you actually look at the breakdown of what is going on,
what the two drivers of U.S. sovereign debt are, they are the very
things that we are not allowed to talk about. It is interest and
demographics.
We are going to walk through some of the reality of the math because
this is how perverse this place has become. The Democrats will blame,
and Republicans will blame, and we are going to blame shiny objects,
things that actually have almost no actual value to our future, to this
Republic, and where we are going.
As we start this, I need everyone to embrace a couple factoids. We
have 7 years until the Social Security trust fund is empty. No one
stole the money. We just didn't have enough young people to keep the
ratios. So, in 7 years, the math right now says a 24 percent cut.
In 7 years, we double senior poverty in America. In 7 years, the math
says: You are going to start to see baby boomers doubling homelessness.
In 7 years, the Medicare trust fund is empty. Hospitals right now and
others who are part of the Medicare part A cash flow take about 11
percent cuts. In 7 years, we double the spending on Medicare. We go
from $1 trillion right now to $2 trillion.
It is demographics. Mr. Speaker, I am going to show you some of those
charts, but let's first walk through the craziness. I have had some
administration folks and other folks talk to me about tax receipts
being up, and they are. There is a whole series of things we have done
to reduce spending, but none of it appears to be big enough to deal
with the cost of the refinancing of debt that is coming off the very
low interest rates from a few years ago to the much higher interest
rates today, to the medical inflation, to the healthcare utilization,
and to just the things that are basic driven by our demographics.
Let's deal with some reality. If anyone has a question about my math,
you can look it up online, Mr. Speaker. Go to the Treasury's website.
This is important. We are now 51 days, I believe, into the new fiscal
year. We are 51 days.
Mr. Speaker, do you realize we have now borrowed $628 billion in the
first 51 days of this new fiscal year? Treasury has put more--is
holding almost $900 billion in cash, which they typically operate with
about $800 billion because of the in and out, but you start to realize,
at the current borrowing rate, we crossed $1 trillion this fiscal year
before Christmas.
It is not Republican or Democratic. It is demographics and interest,
but that isn't a lot of fun because our political consultants need
something where we can attack each other. By doing
[[Page H4858]]
that, we are incapable of an honest conversation of the bleed.
Understand a basic principle, Mr. Speaker: At this rate of borrowing,
when you are clicking off $1 trillion in just 4 months, 5 months, then
you have decided the bond market, basically, is the most powerful
organization in ruling your country. It is not us as policymakers. It
is not the White House. It is the bond market because if you do the
last 12 months, we have been borrowing about $6.3 billion a day. So far
this last 51 days, we are borrowing closer to $12 billion a day.
It is just math, except we are incapable of actually talking about
it.
Think about these microphones here, Mr. Speaker. How many people
since we got back from the shutdown have you heard, on the left and the
right, get behind these things and say, ``Hey, guys, the greatest
threat to your Republic is actually the math''?
This group hates something Donald Trump does. Our side doesn't like
some of the things they do. Okay, great. The lack of civility is
crushing. However, one of my personal theories is the reason you just
had a 40-something-day shutdown, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not like
the old days, where you could have bought the Senators' votes. Hey, if
you vote for us, you get a bridge. We now have to deal with the fact
that we don't have cash lying around.
We are going to borrow. You will start to see this. We went from $37
trillion to $38 trillion in 71 days. There were lots of excuses for
this. There was, hey, we had the debt ceiling, had to repopulate, pay
back the internal borrowing we did, those things. Except the difference
is here we are into the new fiscal year after the debt ceiling has been
raised, and the burn rate still looks really similar.
I am sure all the committees, all the leadership, all the folks who
are helping us watch the bond market and the liquidity and our ability
to borrow are all paying attention to the bleed rate, but it is math.
It is real.
Mr. Speaker, our debt to GDP when we closed the '25 fiscal year
actually got slightly better, but we also rolled some of the borrowing
into the next day, which hit a new fiscal year. It happens all the
time. You have strike dates of when you can actually pay certain bills,
Mr. Speaker, but this one isn't in question. Last year, for every
dollar of tax receipts we took in--this is customs duties. This is
excise tax, income tax, corporate tax. Everything we took in, we spent
$1.43.
This year, for every dollar we take in, our budget says that we are
going to also spend $1.43. How long can we do this? How long can we do
this?
Mr. Speaker, my 3-year-old--and, yes, I am this age. My wife is my
age. We have a 10-year-old and a 3-year-old. There is a dataset out
there that basically says that when my 3-year-old is about 22, 23 years
old, so 20-some years from now, every tax in America, every tax, needs
to be doubled just to maintain baseline spending.
Mr. Speaker, how many people have you had come behind this mike and
who have just said: Look, is this moral? Is this really what America is
all about? Yes.
I am going to show the slides that show what the Democrats say: We
will just tax billionaires and rich people. It doesn't get you anything
close. It doesn't close the gap, and you know it.
For our side, we are going to cut spending. Really? It doesn't get
you close because we are not ready to have the revolution of how we
spend money. That is because adopting the very technologies, the cures,
the things we can do, this army of lobbyists outside this door loses
their blanking minds because we are requiring them to either change
their business models or make the bureaucracy do it differently or
maybe come up with the conclusion we shouldn't do it at all.
Once again, for every dollar we take in of tax receipts, we are going
to spend $1.43. Why doesn't that almost create a sense of panic, of
agita, for the left or the right?
{time} 1850
Is it just that we run into the problem of telling the truth to our
voters after maybe we have lied to them? It is rich people that we
don't tax enough. It is waste and fraud. It is illegals. All of those
are real, except, in the scale of the spending, they are just not that
much. It is just the insanity of what is going on.
Look, I am trying to help you understand wages.
Let's back up.
Tax receipts are up. Spending is up dramatically more, but most of
the tax receipts that we are gaining are almost all capital gains. So,
of the increased tax receipts, only about 5.5 percent of it is actually
the growth in wages. Almost 65 percent is capital gains because the
stock market has been doing well. So, once again, we are back to the
world of financial engineering.
Those of us with assets, we are doing great. You keep hearing people
talk about the K-shaped economy. What they mean by that is if you are
on the lower tier, you don't hold assets, particularly after the years
of inflation. Those with assets, the asset is inflated, and they are
just fine. If you didn't hold assets, you are poorer today.
For my district in the Phoenix-Scottsdale area, I think our
calculation is, after sort of the first year of the Biden
administration, if you don't make today at least 28 percent more than
you did then, you are poorer today.
Now, there is almost no cycle where magically prices start to come
down. The way you deal with this is economic growth, wage growth.
Is prosperity moral? Is it Republican or Democrat? It is just the
right thing to have a society where people's lives get better every
day.
This is just a board I have used before, but it is just to make a
point for anyone that is paying attention. This is the 10-year bond.
Right now, the United States isn't at 4 percent. We are about 4.1.
Okay. We can sell a 10-year bond today for about 4.1 percent. I need
you to look here. Greece can sell a 10-year bond today for about 3.3
percent. When Greece has a better strike, a better--let's call it a
credit rating. It is technically not a credit rating, but when Greece
can sell a bond cheaper than the United States, should that actually
raise the hair on the back of your neck?
Are you thinking about the fact that the United States, for the
industrialized countries, is like number 12?
Let's call it the credit stack, the ability to sell a 10-year bond.
Why are other countries able to sell a 10-year bond cheaper than the
biggest economy in the world, the country with the reserve currency?
Does anyone pay attention to this? People say, ``Oh, David, that is not
fair. Greece engaged in fiscal consolidation.'' They are actually
lowering their debts, where we are now over 100 percent of debt-to-GDP.
There are no plans to tell the truth about it. If you tell the truth,
you might get unelected. You have a dozen countries that can sell a 10-
year bond cheaper than the United States today, Greece being one of
them.
Let's get into some of the complications. When I say one of the
primary drivers is interest and demographics, remember, if you have $38
trillion--and remember, we play this game. The United States does this.
Other countries don't do this.
Here is $30 trillion that we have to go to public markets. People
from all over the world, primarily from the United States, buy our
bonds. It is in your pension. It is in the bank note you buy. There are
another several trillion that are actually borrowed internally. It is
not magic money. We still owe the Social Security trust fund money, the
Medicare trust fund money. When we borrow the cash out of those trust
funds, they are paid interest, so it is still an obligation.
It is one of my great frustrations when you hear some of the
government economists say, Well, publicly borrowed money is this. Yes,
but the internally borrowed money we still owe interest on, are we not
going to pay it back? It is borrowing.
When I come back and say demographics, understand age groups as a
share of the population, from 2004 to 2024, so a year-plus ago, we had
1.4 percent of the population was 18 years old. In 2024, 1.3 percent of
the population was 18 years old. It is just demographics. The United
States, in around 1990 to 1991, started to roll over in the number of
children we have.
For the people who are into the natalist policies, we spent lots of
time researching this. There is no magic solution. You have a country
out there that, when you have your third or fourth child, they buy you
a house. It still hasn't increased fertility rates.
[[Page H4859]]
There is a crazy math set, and I have never vetted it, saying, like,
South Korea in 150-something years, there are almost no South Koreans
left. It is happening all over the industrialized world.
This is why getting tax policy, regulatory policy things, so
correct--because we are going to have to be able to find a way to have
productivity grow and grow so we can raise people's wages because so
many of our brothers and sisters are poorer today. The way you raise
wages is two things: inflation--well, that doesn't get you anywhere--or
productivity.
You can't be afraid of AI, synthetic biology, robots. People go,
``Oh, David, you are not supposed to say that,'' but it is true. Next
year, the number of 18-year-olds is lower, smaller, than this. The year
after that, it is smaller than that. Then, it is smaller than that.
America is now running into a situation where we have too many
classrooms and too many schoolbuses and not enough senior centers.
This place is doing an amazing job at having an honest conversation
about the United States' demographics and where we are going. ``Oh,
David, we are not supposed to talk about that.'' How do you make public
policy if you can't even be honest about the most basic parts of the
math?
The other part of the punch line here is, 20 years ago, 12.3 percent
of the population was 65 and up. Mr. Speaker, 20 years later, it is,
functionally, 18 percent. It is not double, but it is pretty darn close
to double those who are 65 and up.
Look, a weird little factoid: When I was a teenager in the 1970s--and
I remember this number. There was, functionally, $7 spent for every
young person and $1 spent on seniors. Today, that is flipped. It is
just demographics. The baby boomers have moved into their retirement
years. We have a societal promise we have to keep. We made a promise,
but once again, in 7 years, the Medicare trust fund is gone. In 7
years, the Social Security trust fund is gone. We are going to lie our
heinies off around here. If we just tax rich people more--and I will
show you the slides. The math doesn't work. Once again, we work in a
math-free zone.
Let's have a little more fun with reality, change in population by
age. Now, this board is controversial, but the math is accurate. I will
see if I can try to describe this in a way where we can all absorb it.
In 2004, we had, functionally, 77 million that were 18 or younger. We
estimate, in 2035, if we do not have immigration--remember, this year,
we expect almost zero population growth, so let's first do those who
want no immigration. In 2035, we have only 64 million that are under
18. With immigration, you still have fewer people. That is over 20
years.
Okay, fine. Maybe that is the policy decision of our society. In that
case, don't stand in our way when people like me are trying to find
ways to actually have productivity, wages grow.
{time} 1900
This is something very unique that the United States is up against:
massive amounts of debt. Massive amounts of debt. Remember, so far this
fiscal year--God, I have to do this math really quick.
I think we are borrowing like $130,000, maybe $131,000 every second.
If I take it over the last 12 months, it is like $71,000 a second.
So you have this massive debt, and then a population that is flat,
and where we are going right now, it actually could be declining over
the next decade. Not by a lot.
Tell me how I make the economy grow. How do I make sure your pension
is there? How do I make sure your access to healthcare is there? How do
I make sure your wages go up? There are ways we can do it, and I have
come up behind these mikes over and over and over and talked about the
adoption of technology, about redesigning government.
We have bills that actually would save $3 trillion, and I can't get a
single other Member of Congress to sponsor them because they are hard.
I will get lobbyists who will say mean things about me.
So let's keep just doing the shiny objects. Let's just keep doing the
petty around here. I think yesterday was the 14th time we have tried to
reprimand or censure a fellow Member. Let's just do more of that
because it gets great Twitter traffic, and we don't have to talk about
the fact that that day we borrowed over another $6 billion. Actually,
if it is just this fiscal year, it is closer to $12 billion that day.
So let's take another look.
Change in employment status of native born and foreign born. This is
something that is really, really interesting. We are actually taking a
look right now for what we believe is sort of this fiscal year's
snapshot. We actually have foreign born actually going down. Now, some
of this is self-deportation. There are things going on, we don't have
enough data to completely understand it, but my problem is: I don't
actually have enough folks for the civilian labor force.
Look, something funky happened in this morning's unemployment numbers
where there was a good pop in jobs, maybe almost 2, 2\1/2\ times what
many of the economists expected, but did you notice unemployment popped
up? Now, that is typically saying: Oh, we don't like that.
I need you to think about this. We have been desperate for more of
our brothers and sisters to come back into the labor force, but here is
my problem: How many of those folks are coming back to the labor force
because they can't pay their bills because wages still haven't gone up
enough to make up for the years of inflation?
We actually don't know completely yet, but we do know that our
brothers and sisters out there are stressed out of their mind when you
start to look at credit card delinquencies, car delinquencies. ``Our
impairments'' is the better way to phrase it.
We need to get our heads out and start thinking about those policies
that get the economy working, a tax code that actually gets investment
in the next generation. But are we going to adopt policies?
All right. Let me go jump on a landmine.
Does it make sense to have a government that goes out and owns 10
percent of Intel? So your government is the largest shareholder of
Intel.
Okay. I love Intel. But I can actually show you some brilliant
economic papers that say that it should be four different or three
different companies; here is the fab; here is the engineering; here is
this and that.
The concept of creative destruction. Here is how the thought
experiment works: If you are old enough to remember Blockbuster Video,
should we have slowed down the internet so that Netflix could not have
put Blockbuster Video out of business? That is sort of what we are
doing today, we are choosing the winners and losers instead of the
creative destruction that starts the next cycle of productivity.
We need the creative destruction in our economy to have the rebirths
of the newer, better, and faster. Yes, it is always uncomfortable. It
is also really great free market economics. And it is as if we have
repealed the rules of a free market economy in this country right now.
So let's actually take another look. Now we are going to step onto
the next, much bigger landmine. Let's talk about Social Security.
Social Security finances and worker-to-beneficiary ratio. This is how
many workers there are compared to our brothers and sisters receiving.
Do you see the red lines here? This is actually the trust fund. You
will notice, actually, around 2020, the trust fund had $5 trillion in
it.
In 7 years, it is all gone, and no one stole your money. The average
couple, it is a crap rate of return. You have to understand. If 20, 25
years ago, you had been allowed to take a little sliver and put it in
the markets, you would be dramatically better off moving into
retirement, but the left lost its mind on the discussion. The unions
lost their minds. AARP lost its mind. But now we can look back. We have
25 years. We can actually do the calculation and tell the truth.
They were wrong. But it is too late to do anything like that today
because the population bubble has already moved into their retirement
years. So here we are. At 7 years, that trust fund is gone.
What is also interesting--it is a little hard to see in this chart--
as we get into the outer years, you are getting to the point where you
have 2.2, 2.3. So you and your spouse or you and your partner
functionally will have one retiree, and that is the way the system
[[Page H4860]]
was designed. They didn't think about, when they designed things like
the Social Security trust fund, that we would have a day when the
population of young people in the United States actually was declining.
It is demographics. We know the math. We have known for how many
years that we had baby boomers and 67 million of them. Yet, this place
because it is crap politics to tell the truth about math, we lie. We
make up things. Well, we tax billionaires.
I am going to show you boards that every dime of every billionaire in
America would only run the government 9 months, and, also, you would
put the world into a depression because most of that value is actually
in stock. So if you happen to have some stocks in your retirement fund,
it is all gone. We are going to crash everything, but it is a thought
experiment.
There was someone who had an article out this last week that talked
about saying: Well, when the Social Security trust fund is gone, we
will just borrow it from the general fund, and the general fund will
borrow it from the debt market.
Okay. Let's see. When you start to look at the scale of debt, do you
see the red here? That is already where we are going. That is already
in the baseline. This line here exploding up, that is as if we took the
Social Security trust fund--and I don't believe this even has the
Medicare trust fund, which is also empty in 7 years.
If anyone really wants to understand how difficult the policy choices
are and, also, how--let's have a brutal moment--the Members here don't
tell the truth, particularly my brothers and sisters on the left. We
will just tax rich people.
Please go look up Jessica Riedl's calculations from the Manhattan
Institute. There are a couple of great articles. They walk you through
the math.
Every tax--so do the Bernie Sanders math. We are going to take people
over $400,000, $500,000, and we are going to maximize tax. You maximize
everything. It is almost a Laffer curve. We are going to tax you to the
point that it rolls over. On every tax, you get 1\1/2\ percent of GDP
in new taxes.
Okay. It would probably be really helpful.
On the Republican side, the things we talk about cutting, we only get
about 1 percent of GDP.
Last year, if you do the internal borrowing, we borrowed about 7.6,
7.4 percent of the entire economy.
We are actually looking that in 2035 we are going to borrow 8.4
percent of the entire economy, and the solution I get from the left
covers 1\1/2\ percent. Often, the solution I get on my side is 1
percent.
Does anyone see the math problem? We are all going to go home and
talk to our partners and audience and say: If I just cut taxes, or if I
just cut things. Maybe we have to do that, but it doesn't get you
close.
Once again, 1\1/2\ percent from taxing all the rich people, and 1
percent of GDP in the cuts we have actually articulated. I have 2\1/2\
percent. In 9 budget years, we are borrowing 8.4 percent of the entire
economy, and that is assuming interest rates don't go up.
{time} 1910
Remember, in 9 years under today's interest rate scheme, 30 percent
of tax receipts go to just the interest. If interest rates go up 1
percent, it is 45 percent of all tax receipts of the United States in 9
years would go to just interest.
I will say this, and I have said it how many times behind these
microphones and people go, David, that is interesting. Please never say
that again because I don't want to actually have to explain this.
If we do the math, take every billionaire in America, get full face
value of everything they have. Sell every stock, every yacht, every
this, every that, you covered government for 9 months. That is assuming
you don't put the world into a depression. You don't crash all the
stock markets. You don't crash all the asset markets. It covers 9
months.
Why do we live in this fantasy world where people throw out solutions
like this that they know are absolute frauds? Because it is great
politics. It is crap math.
Let's actually go on to one of our current debates.
I watched someone come to the floor yesterday on the subsidies on top
of the subsidies in the ACA. Let's call it ObamaCare because that is
the common vernacular, but it is the ACA. We are having the debate
because the Democrats actually did these enhanced subsidies on top of
the subsidies and those subsidies expire.
Let me do this one backward, so there is a little more understanding
of the line.
How much of the healthcare population in America is actually in the
ACA? It is really important. Forty-eight percent is employer sponsored,
7 percent we believe is uninsured, veterans are about 3 percent,
Medicare is 18 percent, and Medicaid is 22 percent. Now over the next
couple years that flips. Only 7 percent of the healthcare population is
actually in the ACA.
That is the entire population that is receiving the enhanced
subsidies, so the subsidies on top of the subsidies, is a fraction of
that.
Now you have to also take a look at what is wrong in that math. We
actually keep looking at these numbers over and over. We have been
analyzing them with our joint economic economists, and I have a couple
Ph.D.s in healthcare economics. We are trying to understand what the
hell is going on with these numbers, but you start looking at it after
the COVID subsidies.
Do you know you got 41 percent of the population that is actually
supposed to be just receiving government subsidies to make it more
affordable and they are paying zero?
Do you understand what they did with the subsidies on top of the
subsidies? They took populations 400 percent of poverty and up, and in
some areas, you have four or five kids, you have people making
$400,000, $500,000 qualifying, except that is a small population of
them but they still would qualify.
Why is this important?
Mr. Speaker, if I could have some way to burn this on to people's
psyche. What the ACA, Medicare for All--the Republican alternative had
better actuarial distribution, but they have tried to turn healthcare
into financial engineering.
What you have done is, is financing, is subsidies healthcare. Well,
we will tax these people and we will subsidize this population. Listen
to the debates here. It is about subsidies on top of subsidies. It is
financial engineering. Now, it is healthcare. Why it is healthcare is
because it is easy. It makes the lobbyists happy. It makes the people
receiving the money happy because no one gets cut. No one has to do a
new design. No one has to actually stop new technology. No one has to
fixate on our brothers and sisters.
If obesity is 47 percent of U.S. healthcare, none of the money goes
to making our brothers and sisters healthier so they live longer and
they don't have multichronic conditions because we are just going to
subsidize them.
It is perverse.
Could you imagine the $35 or $40 billion that the Democrats are
demanding for the subsidy on top of the subsidy for populations that
are upper income? If some of that money actually went to lowering the
actual cost of healthcare instead of the financial engineering of
subsidizing insurance companies because that is what they are talking
about.
Let's just go to this one and see if I can make this make sense. This
is a bit complicated, but we have been trying to do the analytics of
how much the subsidies have screwed up the price of healthcare.
If you walk through it, we can actually chart where the subsidies
come in and it actually raises the price of healthcare. The way the
insurance companies retain their profits--we have actually built a
model that shows, of the stunning amounts of money we are spending,
only 34 percent actually goes to the insured and their healthcare.
Another 28 percent is disappearing into people that didn't even know
they had insurance.
I am sure we all have been reading the articles that a third, 30
percent of those in the enhanced ACA subsidies--so the subsidies on top
of the subsidies--didn't even know they had health insurance.
A couple days ago, you saw someone got convicted of or pled guilty to
a couple hundred million-dollar fraud
[[Page H4861]]
scheme where they were signing people up, getting the money, getting
the government subsidies, those things, and the people had no idea they
had insurance because they really didn't. They were just taking the
money.
The system is absolutely screwed up and we have 38 percent
disappearing in the insurance malaise.
This is what we have turned healthcare into. It is a financing. I beg
of my brothers and sisters here, we have pieces of legislation, dozens
of them, that would change the cost of healthcare.
When we think we may have spent $25 to $35 billion last year in
duplicative MRIs, X-rays, CTs, ultrasounds, why not a simple piece of
legislation that when you get your MRI, it is attached to this thing so
it is portable to your next doctor.
Is that that scary? Except the lobbyists show up and say, David, you
don't understand. The duplicative scans are part of our profit model.
Oh, I am not supposed to say that out loud. We have dozens of things
like this.
We have turned healthcare into being about the money instead of our
brothers and sisters living better, living healthier. Mr. Speaker, what
if some of the money goes to the cures so we don't finance your misery,
we finance your freedom from that misery?
I say these things and tomorrow morning there will be an army of
lobbyists or an army of groups from my district saying, David, you
don't understand. We need the cash. Don't make us do it in a modern
fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to make the argument prosperity is moral.
Curing people's misery is moral. Using the technology that makes you
sovereign, that makes you free so you can help take care of your own
health, is moral, and what we do here is absolutely immoral.
We don't tell the truth about the debt. We don't tell the truth about
the demographics. We don't tell the truth about the damage we are doing
to your retirement, my little kids' future. We don't tell the truth
that if we would actually legalize technology--and I am serious about
this--legalize it, how much healthier every American could be and we
could crash the price of healthcare.
Will this go on deaf ears?
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________