[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 15876-15877]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 REPUBLICAN PARTY PRINCIPLES OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT, ECONOMIC FREEDOM, 
              AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD PREVAIL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of some reluctance to take a 
position at variance with the leadership of my party. I do so, however, 
because I believe that the direction we are headed with this bill on 
prescription drugs is inconsistent with the Republican Party's 
principles of limited government, economic freedom, and individual 
responsibility.
  I hope that my opposition to this bill does not imply my support for 
the Democratic alternative. While we Republicans are surely headed off 
the fiscal cliff, the Democrats' plan would only get us there much 
faster.
  This legislation is a prime example of the question debated in high 
school civics classes all over the country: Are we as Members of 
Congress sent to Washington to vote the wishes of our constituents or 
the demands of our conscience?
  We have all read the polls. It is clear that seniors want a 
prescription drug benefit as part of a traditional Medicare. Further, 
seniors seem skittish when it comes to substantive Medicare reform. 
These findings are often cited by supporters of the legislation. Rarely 
cited, but certainly understood, is the fact that seniors vote in 
numbers disproportionate to their size of the electorate.
  But as sitting Members of Congress, we are also aware that adding a 
new entitlement of this size is wholly unsustainable. Even without this 
new entitlement, Medicare will go bankrupt within the next couple of 
decades. The $400 billion, 10-year estimate for this add-on will almost 
certainly spiral out of control, just as Medicare's costs have 
ballooned far beyond original estimates.
  So what are we to do? Do we vote as the polls tell us we should vote? 
After all, if it is what our constituents want, can we not simply vote 
``aye'' and wash our hands of the matter?
  We are not the first Congress to face such questions. More than 200 
years ago, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had a similar 
dilemma. Many in this new country wanted a governmental structure 
similar to the one that they were used to, rather than what was 
envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
  George Washington's words to the Constitutional Convention should 
instruct us today: ``If, to please the people we offer what we 
ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work?''
  George Washington understood what leadership is all about. It is not 
about riding the wave of public opinion, but in changing its course. It 
would have certainly been more comfortable for the Founding Fathers to 
go along with what they perceived to be the will of the people, rather 
than to persuade them that there was a better way. Many generations 
later, we are grateful for their leadership.
  So here we are today. As Members of Congress, we know that adding a 
prescription drug benefit without reforming Medicare will only hasten 
its bankruptcy. By our own estimates, this plan will add about $7.8 
trillion to Medicare's unfunded liability. Somehow, I doubt that 
generations to come who are saddled with this debt will be hailing us 
as leaders.

[[Page 15877]]

  Knowing all of this, can we defend our work? No, Mr. Speaker, we 
simply cannot. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

                          ____________________