[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 28960-28967]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ellison). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great privilege and 
honor to come back to the floor of the House and present some 
alternative views, some views that I hope are more grounded in truth as 
this is another edition of the Official Truth Squad. We've heard some 
interesting comments over the last hour and over the last few days and 
weeks and months. So, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to be 
designated by our leadership to come and share some words with this 
Chamber.
  I would first comment about the relative tone and the divisiveness of 
the language that we have just heard. It just astounds me that people 
think who come to Washington that our constituents want us to be 
divisive. When I go home, what I hear from folks is that they want us 
to work together, that they want us to work together positively for 
solutions. So the class warfare debate that we have just experienced 
over the last hour is truly remarkable, as one Member talked about the 
spirit of Lincoln, a proud Republican, and what he brought to our 
Nation. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people 
is what he championed. He also championed an end to class warfare. So I 
would encourage my colleagues to read further in history and to expand 
their vision of what it is that their constituents truly want. And as I 
mentioned, Mr. Speaker, my constituents, our constituents, I think, 
want us to work together.
  This is the Official Truth Squad. This is a group of folks who come 
to the floor and have an opportunity to address our colleagues and 
hopefully bring, over the course of an hour, a little brighter 
perspective, a little more upbeat perspective, a little more optimistic 
perspective, and, hopefully, a little more truthful perspective because 
so often what happens on the floor of this House during the course of 
our debates is that the truth tends to be swept away. And, again, that 
frustrates our constituents. It frustrates my constituents, I know, 
when they ask why we can't stick to the facts, stick to reason as we 
try to solve the significant challenges that confront us as a Nation.
  I have a number of favorite quotes. One of them is this one from the 
late United States Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He 
said, famously, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they 
are not entitled to their own facts.'' Another one of my favorite 
quotes is ``Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.'' So I was 
so pleased when I heard either the Speaker or the majority leader say 
just this in a debate recently, and I would ask my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to heed this. Everyone's entitled to their own 
opinion, and you ought to state so, and that's appropriate. But you're 
not entitled to your own facts.
  So tonight, Mr. Speaker, we're going to share a few facts with our 
colleagues, and I am going to start by bringing a couple of quotes from 
a true American institution. Certainly the ``Tonight Show'' is an 
American institution. The current host of the ``Tonight Show,'' Jay 
Leno, oftentimes crystallizes in just a very humorous way what the 
American people are thinking. So I thought it would be appropriate to 
share with our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, what Jay Leno has said over the 
past couple of days. This is about the state of Congress right now. As 
you know, Mr. Speaker, the numbers for Congress aren't great right now. 
I would again encourage my colleagues to try to use the sense of what 
the American people are saying as a positive impetus to have us move 
forward together in a commonsense, positive, upbeat, principled way 
that reflects the will of our Nation.
  But Jay Leno said the other day, ``And our new Democratic Congress, 
remember, they promised longer workweeks. Well, now they announced 
they're going to a 4-day workweek. I guess they realized they don't 
need a full 5 days to do nothing.'' It was alluding to the fact that 
really not much

[[Page 28961]]

has gotten done in these first 10 months of this 110th Congress under 
the new leadership. And it hasn't for a variety of reasons. We will 
talk a little bit about that tonight. But I would suggest most clearly, 
Mr. Speaker, that it hasn't because this new majority seems to be 
unwilling to work together on behalf of the American people. SCHIP is a 
classic example, and our colleagues mentioned that, and we will talk a 
little bit about that tonight.
  Jay Leno also said just 2 days ago, ``The Democrats in Congress have 
announced they will now be taking Fridays off. Apparently they were 
getting worried their approval rating was getting too high.'' As I 
mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the approval rating for Congress is not great.
  And that troubles me. It should trouble all of us. It troubles me 
because I think that what the American people are seeing when they look 
here to Washington, when they look to the Speaker and to the leaders 
that are running this Congress, they see an institution and they see a 
group of leaders who are not willing to work with each other. And for 
those of us who are less than senior Members, certainly in the minority 
party at this time, it is very distressing because we came here, all of 
us came here, to solve problems. I oftentimes encourage my colleagues 
to go back and read their first piece of campaign literature in their 
first campaign because I think, Mr. Speaker, that speaks to the goals 
and the vision and the dreams that we all had when we came to Congress.
  But as you know, Mr. Speaker, a recent Zogby poll found that for the 
second month in a row, this Democrat-led Congress's approval rating was 
11 percent. Now, why is that? Well, I think if you look at the bills 
that have been passed through this Congress and signed into law, there 
have been 107 of them so far, Mr. Speaker, 107 bills. Now, you might 
think that that would be a grand accomplishment, and I suspect that it 
is on one measure. This new majority touted the fact that they have had 
over a thousand votes. What they didn't say is that the vast majority 
of those were procedural votes. They were determining how the bills 
ought to move forward, oftentimes in significantly noninclusive ways. 
But 107 bills have gone through the House and the Senate and signed 
into law by the President. So I thought it would be helpful to kind of 
break down those 107 bills. What were they? Were they wonderful 
solutions, as have been proposed, to children's health insurance? Were 
they wonderful solutions to health system reform? As a physician 
myself, I believe so strongly that we need significant, positive, 
patient-centered health system reform.

                              {time}  1930

  Was that one of the bills that was signed? Was controlling the crisis 
that we have in the area of illegal immigration, was that one of the 
bills? Well, regretfully, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, it wasn't.
  In fact, of 107 bills signed into law, 47 of those bills named post 
offices, courthouses or roads. Now, those are important things to do, 
and certainly when we name and honor individuals with the naming of a 
post office or a courthouse or a road, that's an important thing to do, 
but it ought not be something that the majority party brings forward 
and champions as a grand accomplishment. I haven't looked at what the 
votes were on those 47 bills, but I suspect that, by and large, they 
were unanimous. I will just take a wild guess, Mr. Speaker; I suspect 
that the vast majority of those were unanimous.
  So, 47 of the 107 bills signed into law were naming post offices or 
roads or courthouses. Forty-four of the bills were noncontroversial 
measures that were either sponsored by Republicans or they passed 
overwhelmingly. And those are the kind of routine things that you've 
just got to do to keep the trains running on time here.
  So, 47 naming post offices or other buildings; 44 were 
noncontroversial. Fourteen of the remaining 16 were to extend 
preexisting laws or laws that had been passed during the Republican-led 
Congress. Now, that means that there were only two left out of that 
whole 107 bills that were signed into law. In fact, I would suggest, 
Mr. Speaker, that these were the 2 most important bills. One of them 
was the extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and 
we'll talk a little bit about that. But to keep our Nation safe, one of 
them was that bill. That passed. But as I note, Mr. Speaker, that 
passed over the objection of the leadership of the Democrat Party.
  So, one of the most important things we've done, in fact, probably 
one of the two most important things that we've done, passed over the 
objection of the leadership of the Democrat Party, the majority party. 
The other bill that passed was the supplemental to provide appropriate 
resources for our troops.
  So, Mr. Speaker, not an opinion, but a fact is that we have, yes, we 
have, indeed, had over 1,000 votes. And the majority party is very 
proud of that, and maybe they should be. But when you look at the 
number of bills that have passed Congress, 107, 47 of those were to 
name post offices or buildings, 44 were noncontroversial, 14 were to 
continue previous law, and two, the 2 most important, the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act and the appropriate resources for our 
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, passed over the objection and the vote 
of the majority leadership, the majority of the majority leadership.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that's something to champion, but I 
will tell you that I believe that's part of the reason that the 
American people say, ``What's going on? What's going on up there in 
Washington? Can you all please work together on behalf of the American 
people?'' which is what I believe and my colleagues, I know, believe we 
ought to do. In fact, many of those things would be very, very humorous 
if they weren't so doggone serious. We are in challenging times, Mr. 
Speaker, and I would suggest and encourage my colleagues, frankly, on 
both sides of the aisle to put positive issues out there and work 
together as we move forward.
  One of the bills that we heard from our good friends on was the SCHIP 
bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and I will be 
joined by a number of colleagues tonight to talk about that. I would 
just like to say that as a physician who practiced in the northern side 
of Atlanta for over 20 years taking care of kids, I take personal 
offense to anybody who says that those of us who have not supported so 
far the State Children's Health Insurance reauthorization bill don't 
care about kids. Clearly, we care about kids. I spent my entire 
professional life caring for kids.
  The other side says, well, 81 percent of the American people want 
SCHIP. Well, they do when you ask them the question, do you support the 
State Children's Health Insurance Program? And I ask that of my folks 
when I go home and have meetings and talk to Rotary Clubs and other 
kinds of groups. And I have asked them over the past 2 or 3 months, do 
you support renewing the State Children's Health Insurance Program? And 
sure enough, the vast majority of the people raise their hand, and as 
well they should. And I ask them to keep their hand up. And then I 
said, now, would you support that bill if you knew that poor kids were 
not going to be taken care of before kids in wealthier families? Put 
your hand down if you wouldn't support that bill if you knew that kids 
from higher income families would get insurance paid for by the 
taxpayer before lower income kids. And about one-third or so of the 
hands come down; still a number of hands up there. And I say that 
because that's what is in the bill that the majority party passed and 
that was vetoed by the President, and then we sustained that veto.
  And then I say, well, now, would you support that State Children's 
Health Insurance Program if you knew that it also covered childless 
adults? And a number of other hands come down. And I don't make that 
up. I ask that question because that's in the bill. Now we've got about 
one-half or maybe one-third of the folks still raising their hand 
saying they would support the bill. I say, now, would you support the

[[Page 28962]]

bill if you knew that 2 million kids would be forced from private 
personal health insurance onto public, State-run, government-run 
bureaucratic medicine? And you get almost all of them coming down at 
that point. They've kind of gotten the clue that in the fine print in 
the bill, it's not what they've been led to believe.
  And then I ask them, well, would you support the bill if you knew 
that in order to make the funding work, you would have to have 22 
million new smokers in America because it's paid for by tobacco tax, 
would you support it now?
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't have to tell you the results of this 
unscientific poll. But the fact of the matter is, not an opinion, but 
the fact of the matter is when I get through outlining what was in the 
bill, there isn't a hand left. There isn't a hand still raised that 
said they would support that bill.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, that's why the numbers have come down. In the 
length of time that the majority party has been demagoguing this issue 
and trumpeting out their radio ads and their television ads across this 
Nation, what has happened is that the American people have recognized 
that the story that they were being told by this majority party, the 
Democrat leadership, was, in fact, not the truth. It may have been an 
opinion; it certainly wasn't the truth.
  And so now what we see is 55, 60, 60-plus percent of the American 
people saying yes, we want to help poor kids, absolutely, that's 
appropriate. And we'll talk tonight about how we should do that, a 
positive message, an upbeat message, an optimistic message, a message 
that says, yes, Americans are generous, we know that, and they believe 
that, in fact, there is a better way, there is a better way to do 
business here in Washington, hopefully to raise those numbers. There is 
also a better way to fashion a bill that would provide health insurance 
for low-income kids.
  So I am pleased to be joined tonight by a couple of colleagues, my 
good friend from New Jersey, who certainly knows fiscal issues as well 
as the issue of State Children's Health Insurance Program. I look 
forward to your comments this evening and yield to my good friend Mr. 
Garrett.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
heading this program tonight to bring about the Truth Squad, which when 
I'm not here on the floor, I'm in my office turning on C-SPAN to make 
sure that I can find out the latest of what the actual facts are, 
because we can't always be assured that we hear them correctly from the 
other side of the aisle.
  Actually, that's where I want to begin on this one. I was tuning in 
as I was doing some work at my desk for the last 10 or so minutes of 
the other side of the aisle, and I was a little bit amused by their 
closing comment. They seem to be chagrinned by the fact that they don't 
have the opportunity to get the message out, if you were listening to 
them, that the President seems to be able to have the bully pulpit and 
be able to get the record straight out to the American public, and they 
don't. I had to scratch my head at that time because I thought, well, 
gee, doesn't the Democrat Party now control both this House, isn't 
Nancy Pelosi now the Speaker of this House? Isn't Harry Reid now the 
lead in the Senate as well? I thought the Democrat Party was the 
majority party.
  And I know that every time that I leave this Chamber during the day 
there are microphones out there waiting for speakers to speak. And 
they're not coming to me to ask for comments; they are looking to the 
Democrat majority. So I think they were a little bit flippant or 
disingenuous, if you will, when they're saying that they're not able to 
get the message out. I think what they are really saying, though, is 
the message that is getting out is not a truthful message, and some of 
the points that you've already made.
  And if I may just touch upon a point or two here. If you go back in 
time a little bit to when President Clinton was in office, he laid out 
the groundwork of what his vision was for health care in this country. 
He told us where he would like to take this country and maybe where his 
wife would also like to take this country when it comes to health care. 
And he said that he wanted government-run healthcare. He wanted 
universal, socialized, Washington-controlled health care. And how would 
you get there, he said? Well, he laid it out in plans; he put it out in 
a book, almost, for us. He said, you get there not overnight, although 
I guess Hillary Clinton tried to do that, but he said, no, you get 
there incrementally. First what you do is you insure the indigent 
children, then you will insure all the children, and eventually you 
will insure all the adults as well. And what does that bring you to? 
Well, that's socialized, government-run and controlled health care. 
Now, that may be something that he would like and maybe a small segment 
of this country would like, but when I go back to my constituents, they 
remind me that Washington government may not be the most effective and 
efficient entity in the entire world of delivering services. They 
remind me of what happened back when Katrina occurred and we had FEMA 
step in to try to deliver services, and it was abysmal. They remind me 
continuously, regardless of which party is in control, earmarks, and we 
can talk about that ad nauseum later on probably, about the waste, 
fraud and abuse when it comes to spending their hard-earned dollars on 
earmarks.
  They remind me, also, some of them who were trying to leave this 
country during this past summer for a summertime vacation and they 
found out that they needed to get a visa in order to do so. And they 
could not get their visa even though they put in their request one, 
week, two weeks, three weeks, eight weeks, nine weeks in advance. A 
very basic function of the U.S. government to supply visas to people, 
and they couldn't get them on time. They remind me that the government 
couldn't even do one of their basic functions.
  They remind me, finally, when it comes to what is one of the most 
seminal issues when it comes to any government, and that is to protect 
your borders, and they say, you know, Congress, here under this 
majority, can't even get that issue resolved and done. We can't get the 
money to the border security guards. We can't get that fence built 
along there. If the government can't do those functions, they ask me, 
why in the world do we want to turn over our control, life-and-death 
situations, really, and you're a physician, you know this, to an entity 
that can't run the functions that they're doing right now.
  They tell me, the American public, my constituents tell me that they 
want to make sure that health care remains in their hands, that health 
care remains as a private matter in the sense of a doctor-patient 
relationship. Maybe you want to comment on that at some point, where 
they're in control of the delivery, of the questions and the asking and 
what have you and the needs for the services, and the doctor is in 
control of the services that are being provided. They don't want big 
brother, if you will, stepping in and saying, well, no, we're going to 
exclude you, include you and what have you. So they are very hesitant 
to go down the direction that Bill Clinton wanted this country to go 
down and now this Democrat majority wants us to go down as well.
  And if the gentleman would continue to yield.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. The very definition of a middle-class 
entitlement, which, as Bill Clinton would say, is the next step to go 
to socialized, government-run health care, well, the very definition of 
a middle-class entitlement can be seen in what the Democrats are trying 
to do right now with SCHIP. Look at the numbers. And I know I don't 
have a chart behind me like you do to have these numbers right next to 
me, but let's think of these basic numbers.
  Right now the SCHIP program, as originally intended, was to fund 
indigent care for children, at what level?

[[Page 28963]]

Two hundred percent of poverty. Ballpark figure, that's around $42,000 
for a family of four; that's what is defined as poverty for that 
family. The medium income, that's the middle income in this country, 
for a family of four all across this country on average is about 
$48,000. So, $48,000 is the middle range. Any time you're going to 
start spending more, providing a government-run program for somebody 
making more than the middle by definition now becomes a middle-class 
entitlement, and that leads us to government-controlled health care.
  So, when they're talking about providing services above 200, 250, 
300, well, 300 percent of poverty, that would put you at approximately 
$62,000 for a family of four. In New Jersey, we're at 350 percent of 
poverty; that puts you around $72,000 for a family of four. So, by 
definition, they're telling us that they are not trying to create a 
program for the indigent and the poor in this country. By the very 
definition of the words they're using and the facts that are out there, 
they are trying to create an entitlement program for the middle class. 
And then of course the question is, who is going to pay for that?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I will yield.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate your perspective on it and your 
comments because they ring true. Those are the absolute facts, Mr. 
Speaker.
  And to put a few more numbers on that, at 300 percent of the poverty 
level, which is about $62,000, $63,000 of income for a family of four, 
79 percent of those families already have health insurance. The 
children have health insurance. And this bill that the President vetoed 
and the veto that we sustained, this bill would have made it so that 
those children would have been essentially forced, because the 
employers would say, well, why should I insure these kids if the 
government is going to do it, those kids would be forced into 
government-run medicine.

                              {time}  1945

  At 300 percent of the poverty level, at 62, $63,000, folks who live 
in families with incomes at that level or below comprise 53 percent of 
the kids in this Nation, 53 percent of the kids, which means that over 
half of the kids would be eligible for State-run, government-run 
bureaucratic health care. And as a physician, I know that whenever the 
government got involved in the decisions I was trying to make on behalf 
of my patients, it was even more difficult.
  I am pleased to welcome my good friend and physician colleague from 
Georgia, who understands those issues as well with governmental 
intervention into the practice of medicine. I appreciate you joining us 
tonight and look forward to your comments.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Price. Certainly 
the posters that he has got up there, Mr. Speaker, that I call our 
colleagues' attention to, I might just touch on that issue in regard to 
the tax on tobacco product, particularly cigarettes, that increase in 
that tax, just 61 cents a pack, I believe that would bring the Federal 
tax on cigarettes to a dollar a pack. But the Heritage Foundation and 
others have looked at that and said, well, how many new smokers would 
you need to have to raise the $70 billion that would actually not 
completely pay for this massive expansion of SCHIP that Democrats have 
recommended? And the number, Mr. Speaker, is 22 million, as Dr. Price's 
poster so vividly points out.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I try to bring posters, because when I look at 
something like this it really drives the issue home and brings it much 
more clear to me. But this is what you have mentioned that is so true, 
and the bill that was passed, as you said, would require 22 million new 
smokers, new smokers, that means from 2010 to 2017, 22 new Americans 
would have to start smoking. This is the number of folks that would 
have to begin smoking just in order to pay for the program.
  Mr. GINGREY. That's right. And that means the ones that are already 
addicted, the poor grandparents and parents of these children that 
can't break that habit, and some of them, Mr. Speaker, and I know my 
colleagues appreciate this, are the poor members of society, for some 
reason that have developed that smoking habit. And we are going to put 
the burden on them, plus 22 million. And some of those 22 million, this 
is the irony of this pay-for that the Democrats have come up with, some 
of these very children, maybe some of the 5,000 that I delivered who 
are old enough to go buy cigarettes, they will have to be addicted to 
help pay for this massive expansion so that their younger brothers and 
sisters can get health insurance funded by the Federal Government. It 
makes absolutely no sense. I really appreciate Dr. Price bringing this 
leadership hour to us as part of the Truth Squad, the ongoing Truth 
Squad, because the truth just needs to be told. And I think the 
important thing for our colleagues to understand and anybody within 
shouting distance to know that Republican Members of this body, and our 
President, George W. Bush, is all for children and providing health 
care for children. If he wasn't, would we be spending $35 billion a 
year on the Medicaid program for children's health insurance? 
Absolutely we would not. The President even has recommended that 
because it is estimated that 750,000 children, we cover 6,750,000 in 
that income bracket that my colleague from New Jersey was talking 
about, the 100 to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level have fallen 
through the cracks, so the President said, look, let's increase this 
spending $25 billion over 5 years, let's increase it 20 percent and a 
little bit more money in there for inflation. But, instead, the 
Democrats come with a bill to increase the spending by 140 percent to 
$60 billion. In fact, in their original bill, the CHAMP Act, they 
wanted to increase it to $90 billion.
  As Dr. Price points out, in this new bill the $60 billion version, 
that is covering 53 percent of all children in this country either on 
the Medicaid or the SCHIP program. Well, there is something wrong with 
that. There is no question about it. We don't need to be paying the 
health insurance for children from families who are making $62,000 a 
year. In some instances in the State of New York, it may be up to 
$83,000 a year. That's what we're railing against, this unnecessary, 
massive expansion. We Republicans and the President want to renew this 
program. It's a good program. We need to increase the funding. The 
President possibly would be willing to even go a little more than a 20 
percent increase. But the only justification the Democrat majority can 
have for this type of increase is just what was already alluded to, a 
march toward a single-payer national health insurance program. In some 
of their rhetoric in regard to Medicare and wanting to start covering 
people at age 55, you see where the gap gets smaller and smaller, and 
then all of a sudden you're covering from cradle to grave everybody in 
this country run by the government.
  So I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my colleague from Georgia, my 
colleague from Cobb County, for leading this time. I know there are a 
number of other speakers that are here that want to weigh in on this. 
We just need to keep fighting. We will get this bill right. But we need 
to do it in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you so much. I appreciate my physician 
colleague pointing out again the number of new smokers needed to pay 
for it. And the last time I remember, it has been a while since I have 
been in medical practice, but we used to try to get folks to quit 
smoking, that is what we tried to get them to do, instead of beginning 
to smoke to pay for it.
  This chart really describes it very, very well, talking about the 
bait and switch of the funding. In addition to having a tobacco tax pay 
for it, which is really counterproductive because we want folks to quit 
smoking, not start smoking, but in addition to that, what happens at 5 
years, this is 2008 program, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, when you get out to 
this fifth year, what happens in the majority party's bill, the 
Democrats' bill? The funding drops way off, which means that they 
weren't sincere about this in the very beginning.
  It really isn't about cost. It is about control, about who is going 
to control

[[Page 28964]]

health care. Is it going to be patients, individuals, families and 
doctors? Or is it going to be government? It really is about something 
as basic as that, a basic question.
  I'm so pleased to be joined tonight by my good friend from Florida 
who has a district that is probably as sensitive to health care as any 
in this Nation, Ginny Brown-Waite. I appreciate so much your joining us 
and I look forward to your comments.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I was sitting in my office calling back some constituents. It was 
7:30, and first of all, they were surprised to hear from any Member of 
Congress calling them back at 7:30, but I am sure everyone here in this 
chamber does exactly that. And I saw you coming here to inform the 
American public about the truth. It is long overdue.
  Many of us in this Chamber had ads run against us. It was during that 
2-week period after the President vetoed the bill. Now, we could have 
been working on a compromise, but no, there had to be time out there 
for the operatives to run nasty ads against people who voted to not 
override the President.
  The President was right. This bill, the spending in the bill is out 
of control. It is out of control, and the American public started to 
catch on. Because when they started to attack me, you know, I have been 
called the mother of this bill. I wasn't in Congress at the time. But 
it was because I was willing to take that very difficult vote to allow 
for third-party reimbursement to come from the tobacco companies for 
health care costs that the money came from.
  So, Dr. Price, your chart there on where the money is coming from is 
very, very interesting because, as you say, in 2013, if I am reading 
the chart correctly, that is where the funding drops off. Twenty-two 
million smokers would be needed to fund this program, which is far, far 
different from that originally envisioned and that which both sides of 
the aisle, the Democrats and the Republicans, worked on in 1997 to come 
up with the SCHIP bill.
  So what exactly do we have in the bill that many of us voted against, 
many of us who fought long and hard for State children's health 
programs? What is in it? Well, it continues to allow adults to receive 
health care under various State SCHIP programs. It is interesting that 
it also will allow more illegals to participate in health care through 
the SCHIP program. That is not what our constituents wanted.
  The Senate received a loud-and-clear message when America finally did 
wake up to what they were doing on the issue of illegal aliens. They 
virtually inundated the switchboard of the Senate. People do not want 
more magnets to attract illegal aliens here. But most of the State 
health plans, part of the pool of money that the various States got 
after going after the third-party reimbursement, part of that money was 
also for education and trying to get people to stop smoking. So isn't 
it interesting that with this hand we fund programs that are trying to 
get people to stop smoking, and yet we have a bill here that says, oh, 
come on, we need some more smokers to pay for this program.
  One of the fallacies that people have finally in America begun to 
realize is that the program, the SCHIP program, was a great program. It 
should be renewed. It shouldn't be expanded. It should be renewed. And 
we need to reach out to those that the program hasn't already touched, 
those low-income children out there. It shouldn't have been, and it was 
never intended originally to be for adults. But, quite honestly, States 
gamed the system. And why did they do it? Because they could get 15 
percent more funding from the Federal Government than they could with 
the traditional Medicaid program that adults go into.
  In Florida alone, we have right now 62,000 children who should be 
eligible for KidCare, which is the State program, but they have not 
signed up for it. So before we go expanding it to middle-income kids, 
let's capture those children in Florida, and every other State, Dr. 
Price, every other State that has children who still are not covered by 
the program, the very, very good program. Many of us actually are on 
the bill that would be a simple extension. And many of us are 
cosponsors of that which allows the program to continue for 18 months.
  I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle realize 
what America really wants. They want this great program to continue for 
low-income children.
  Dr. Price, I appreciate your being here tonight as part of the Truth 
Squad to bring this information to the American public.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Ginny Brown-
Waite. We appreciate your perspective. What a moving story about the 
beginning of the program where you were on the front lines at the 
beginning. I know of nobody in this Congress who has greater compassion 
for kids than you. I sincerely appreciate your coming down, sharing 
that story and trying to bring some truth. That is what we are trying 
to do, trying to bring some truth and some light to this issue.
  When folks at home ask me what the alternative is, because there are 
alternatives, there are wonderful, positive alternatives, a number of 
other Members of Congress have introduced bills. I, along with over 60 
folks in Congress, have introduced a bill that we call More Children 
More Choices Act. It would be a bill that would in fact reauthorize 
SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program, up to 200 percent of 
the poverty level, that is $42,000 for a family of four. For those kids 
between $42,000 and $62,000 and their family, we would provide premium 
assistance, premium support, make it so that all kids can, indeed, get 
health insurance. But most of those kids would then be able to have 
health insurance provided in a personal and private way so that their 
doctors and their families were making health care decisions, not the 
government.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Many of the State programs actually 
had that language in there so that we wouldn't crowd out those who 
already had insurance and encourage them to get into the program. Many 
of the States had subsidies, premium subsidies so that people could 
stay in a family program so you didn't have to have one doctor for 
perhaps your 12-year-old and another doctor for the mom and dad so that 
there could be a family, a true family doctor there because they all 
were covered by the same insurance company. The problem was over time 
many of the States stopped promoting that. So it was just easier to 
enroll the children in the State children's health program, and in 
Florida we call it KidCare. That is an excellent point you bring up.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you so much. I appreciate your joining us 
and providing that perspective.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, there are all sorts of alternatives. The 
alternative we put forward was H.R. 3888. I encourage my colleagues to 
look at it.

                              {time}  2000

  It's a bill that would reauthorize SCHIP. It would make certain that 
we had premium assistance or support for those folks in low to middle-
income families so that they could make certain that they could own 
their own personal private health insurance and be able to make health 
care decisions, with families and doctors being the ones in charge, not 
State or Federal Government. It would allow States greater flexibility 
to provide health insurance for their uninsured population.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to look at that. I think it is the 
kind of bill that folks across this Nation I think are clamoring for 
because it allows us to work together in a positive way and do 
something that benefits our constituents, does something that benefits 
the vast majority of Americans. One of the things that benefits the 
vast majority of Americans is not to have the Federal Government reach 
into their pockets and destroy their economic well-being.
  This Federal Government, under the new leadership here, has shown a 
penchant for increasing the desire to have this government involved in 
all sorts of personal decisions, and probably the most personal of 
decisions is

[[Page 28965]]

what to do with one's money. When you think about it, tax issues, taxes 
are, in actuality, the government, either the local or the State or the 
Federal Government coming into peoples' lives and saying, We know how 
to spend your money better than you do. We know so well how to spend 
your money better than you do that we are going to take it from you, 
because you certainly don't know exactly what you ought to be doing 
with your money.
  This new majority, this new majority has passed all sorts of tax 
bills, almost at every turn. As we have talked about, Mr. Speaker, they 
have passed a $392.5 billion tax increase in their budget; $50 billion 
in new energy taxes; $35 billion in new tobacco taxes; $7.5 billion in 
new taxes on a farm bill. Hold on to your wallet when you go to the gas 
tank; a 55 cents per gallon increase in gas taxes for infrastructure 
and global warming studies; new taxes on homeowners by ending mortgage 
deductions.
  Mr. Speaker, that isn't all, because Congressman Rangel, chairman of 
the Ways and Means, you have got to honor him for his candor, because 
what he says is he is coming with the mother of all tax hikes, the 
mother of all tax increases, and, Mr. Speaker, this is a $3.5 trillion 
proposal for a tax increase over the next 10 years, the largest 
individual tax increase in American history, $3.5 trillion. Mr. 
Speaker, that is with a T. Only in Washington can we talk in those kind 
of numbers.
  It is very concerting to me, I know to my constituents, and it's 
concerting to my colleagues who have joined me tonight to talk about 
the issue of taxes, the issue of money and Washington's appetite for 
money.
  I am pleased to welcome my good friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it's quite ironic, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Price has this 
hour tonight. Tonight is Halloween. I will tell you, when I look back 
at home in California, my kids will be getting ready to go out with 
their friends. Some of them are going to dress up, some will try to 
scare one another. But tonight, Mr. Speaker, this is the scariest 
moment of all. This largest tax increase in American history is going 
to scare every American there is.
  I will tell you that as you study history and study economics, you 
will see in the last cycle when taxes were lower, we set a record April 
15. April 15 was the day people were paying their taxes. With taxes 
lower, more revenue came into American coffers, government, than ever 
before in the history of collecting taxes. Why? Because you let people 
keep more of what they earn. They went out and took their money and 
invested into capital, invested into businesses. What does this plan do 
that the Democrats put forward in the Democrat's largest tax increase? 
It taxes small business, small business at the highest rate. How do you 
create a big business? I guess you can't under the Democratic plan.
  For those that are sitting at home, Mr. Speaker, I want them to think 
for one moment when you think about taxes, because you always don't 
realize how much taxes you pay in a day. On an average day, you wake 
up, you take a shower; do you realize you pay a tax on that water? You 
go maybe over to Starbucks to get a cup of coffee, you pay a tax on 
that coffee. You stop off and fill your car up with gas; you pay a 
gasoline tax. You go into work, and for the first three hours you're 
just paying taxes before you make any money. You go home, turn on the 
TV, hopefully you will see yourself on television, you pay cable tax if 
you're watching this show tonight.
  You go out tomorrow, a lot of us are going to fly home, and when we 
buy that airplane ticket, we're going to pay an airport tax. You rent a 
car, you pay a rental tax. Somebody stays in a hotel, they pay an 
occupancy tax. God forbid, you save enough money and unfortunately die, 
you're going to pay an inheritance tax. On the Democratic plan, it goes 
to 55 percent.
  They think they know what to do with your money. I believe the 
Republicans know what to do with your money. You keep your money and 
invest it and build America. The plan has shown that if government 
continues to grow, they are going to raise your taxes further.
  Mr. Speaker, this plan and the appropriations that have gone through 
on this floor have continued to make government grow, continued to 
increase. How do they want to feed it? By taking more of what you have.
  I want to yield to my good friend from Georgia and thank him for the 
time that he has put into this, because it is a Truth Squad. It's 
rather ironic that tonight you're talking about how the Democrats have 
scared the rest of America. It is scary because they plan to move 
forward with their plan.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend from California for outlining 
what truly is a frightening issue for many Americans. Many folks, 
especially in the middle class, there has been talk about a war on the 
middle class. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the war on the middle class is 
being fully engaged by this majority party when you think about a $3.5 
trillion tax increase.
  Congressman Rangel, again, you have to honor him and commend him for 
his candor and his honesty. He says, well, look, 90 million Americans 
will have a tax decrease with his proposal. What that means, Mr. 
Speaker, is that over 200 million Americans will have their taxes 
increased. That is where this $3.5 trillion comes from. It comes from 
anybody who is paying taxes currently to any degree will have their 
taxes increased. My friend from California outlined so many different 
ways that we are taxed and taxed and taxed by folks who think they know 
how to spend our money better. I believe I know that most folks on our 
side of the aisle believe that individuals know how to spend that money 
better. I recognize my good friend from Ohio, who believes that 
sincerely and has great knowledge and acumen about the issue of taxes 
and financial issues, my good friend, Mr. Jordan from Ohio.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for putting 
this hour together. I thank my friend from California too for his focus 
on keeping taxes low, which the gentleman from Georgia made the right 
point: Whose money is it? Does it belong to the families of this 
country or does it belong to government?
  The families of America know that they can spend their money better 
than government. They can invest it in their kids, their grandkids, 
their goals, their dreams, their ideas, their principles. They can do 
it better than government can. American families know that taxes are 
too high. Think about the typical family, the typical family in this 
country. When you factor in local, State and Federal taxes, all those 
taxes that my friend from California went through that you pay in just 
a typical day, when you factor that in, the typical American family 
spends 50 percent of their income, 50 percent of what they make, what 
they bring in, that they can invest in their kids, their grandkids, 
their future, they have to give to some level of government.
  As the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, when you think about what 
has happened this year in this Congress, we had a budget bill passed 
that doesn't extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that have helped our 
economy, that have helped families have a growing economy, the tax 
increases in there that result in huge, huge taxes in the future on 
American families. We had an energy bill that raises taxes on domestic 
energy companies. We had a farm bill, a farm bill, one of the most 
bipartisan pieces of legislation that typically moves through the 
Congress, had a tax increase in it.
  We had the SCHIP bill that the gentleman spoke on earlier in this 
hour which had a tax increase in it. And just this day on the floor we 
had a Trade Adjustment Assistance Act that also had a tax increase in 
it. And, as my good friend from Georgia pointed out, we now have what 
is appropriately called the mother of all tax increases coming, which 
will raise $3.5 trillion, $3.5 trillion on American families across 
this country.
  It begs the question: Why do politicians want to raise taxes? It is 
real

[[Page 28966]]

simple. Because politicians like to spend money. You always hear ``tax-
and-spend politicians.'' It is actually the opposite. It is spend-and-
tax. Spending always drives the equation.
  That is why this summer my good friend and I and several other 
members of the Republican Party offered a series of amendments which 
said let's hold the line on spending. Let's do what families have had 
to do from time to time, what business owners, as my friend from 
California pointed out, have to do from time to time, what individual 
taxpayers have to do from time to time. Let's just spend what we spent 
last year.
  After all, if you ask the typical American, do you think government 
spends a lot of money? Do you think maybe there is just a little bit of 
waste in the Federal Government? And everyone knows instinctively, of 
course there is. So we said, let's just spend what we spent last year.
  You know what? Right now we are operating in a continuing resolution, 
which is a fancy way of saying we are living on last year's budget, 
even though the Congress was supposed to have budgets in place by 
September 30 and start a new budget. So we are living on last year's 
spending.
  When we argued these amendments this fall, that is what we wanted to 
do, the other side told us, oh, the sky is going to fall, the world is 
going to end, all kinds of things are going to happen. You know what? 
For 4 weeks now we have been doing just what we offered in those 
amendments, living on last year's budget. And, guess what? Kids are 
going to school. The government is still running. Nothing terrible has 
really happened. If we can do it for 4 weeks, we can do it for 4 
months, we can do it for the next year.
  Here is why this is critical. If we don't begin to get a handle on 
spending, it hurts us in our economic position around the world. And 
right now Americans understand this as well. The market is so 
competitive, we have got to keep taxes low, keep spending under control 
so our economy can grow.
  There was a point in the past, there was a point in the past coming 
out of World War II where America was uniquely situated; it didn't 
really matter if elected officials, if politicians did some dumb 
things. But now it matters. Now the competition is so stiff we have got 
to get public policy right.
  Just think of some of the numbers we have to deal with today. We have 
300 million people in this country. We are competing with the Chinese, 
who have 1.3 billion. It is critical that we do things right so we can 
remain the economic superpower, because here is the way the world 
works.
  The economic superpower is also the military and diplomatic 
superpower. Right now there is one country that fits that definition, 
that is the United States of America, and that is a good thing. The 
American people recognize instinctively that the world is safer and 
better when America leads. If in the future that is some other country, 
that is a scary thought. We want America to lead.
  I kind of joke when I say I think the only folks who don't get that 
concept is the editorial page of the New York Times. But Americans 
understand that the world is better. I love what Cal Thomas said. He 
was talking one time about how sometimes the national media doesn't see 
things the same way that a typical American family does. He had a line 
when he was talking about the New York Times. He said, ``I get up every 
morning and I read my Bible and the New York Times so I can see what 
each side is up to.'' There is certainly some truth in that statement.
  It is important for America to lead. The way America can lead 
economically is to keep taxes low, keep spending under control, and, if 
we do that, American families, American business owners can create 
those jobs and make our economy grow so that we have a prosperous 
future, just like America has always had, and that will allow America 
to continue to be the greatest country in the world.
  So I thank the gentleman for his time tonight and for his focus. He 
is so right on target. And my good friend from California as well.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thanks so very much for joining us tonight, and 
for really shedding the truth on issues as they relate to taxes. You 
are so right about the spending.
  That is what we have seen in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, is bill 
after bill after bill with more spending and more spending and more 
spending. And it will drive, it has to drive, increased taxes. So what 
we have seen is a proposal from not just a back-bencher, not just 
somebody who took some wild hair and decided that they were going to 
propose a tax increase; the proposal comes from the chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee, the tax writing committee. And in fact the 
Speaker in her first comments about it said she supported it.
  Mr. Speaker, on Halloween, you talk about something that is 
frightening. As my friend from California said, that is frightening, to 
have the Speaker and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee 
supporting a $3.5 trillion tax increase, the largest tax increase in 
the history of our Nation, on individuals.
  My good friend from California, I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. My good friend from Georgia, I appreciate 
your yielding. You are talking about spending and you are talking about 
how much it has increased.
  The American public would say before you raise my taxes, have you cut 
the waste, the fraud and abuse? You just talked about the chairman of 
Ways and Means. You look at the tax increase he proposed and you wonder 
why does he want to increase taxes so much?
  I look back and I remember on this floor when we were bringing up the 
Health and Human Services bill. In there, you thought you were going to 
talk about the needs and the other things.
  There was an amendment in there. I remember the debate on the 
Republican side, Mr. Speaker, because in there, there was put in what 
is called an earmark for $2 million for a library which the college 
didn't ask for to be named after the chairman of Ways and Means. It was 
interesting to me, I call it ``the monument to me,'' because that is 
exactly what it is. The American people need their taxes raised so 
somebody on this floor can name a library after themselves for $2 
million? And if you look at the brochure, it says it will be just as 
nice as President Clinton or President Carter, which I will tell the 
American people, Mr. Speaker, were paid for by private funds.
  When it was challenged on the side of the Republicans to say maybe 
that earmark is not right because it didn't go through the process, the 
chairman of Ways and Means came to the floor and defended it and said 
he deserved it. When someone said, Well, maybe you shouldn't name it 
after yourself, he talked about it and said, No, I have been able to 
raise $25 million from corporations to go through it. Then when he sat 
there and talked and they said, Well, maybe we should name one after 
ourselves, he said, No, no, you don't deserve it.
  But that is the hypocrisy that goes on on this floor of the Congress. 
When you continue to spend, when you continue to move earmarks and you 
think you can just tax the American public more and more, they are 
going to wake up. That is why I appreciate the time you have taken, the 
Truth Squad, to let people know what goes on on this floor.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the American people for scaring them too 
much, but this is the truth, and I yield back to my good friend from 
Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for those comments, but 
the truth sometimes is painful. And it is important as leaders in this 
Nation that we bring the truth to our constituents. And the truth of 
the tax bill that has been proposed is on this chart right here, Mr. 
Speaker. This describes the time from 2007 through 2050 and the amount 
of money that would be raised, the amount of taxes that would be raised 
by the Democrats is this orange line right here, this top line, and it 
continues to go up and up and up.

[[Page 28967]]

  And the reason it is important to appreciate it going up is this 
ordinate here, the Y axis, has the percent of GDP. That is the entire 
economy of the United States. And once you get above about 18, 19, 20 
at the outside, the economy tends to plummet. You can't run the economy 
in an aggressive and appropriate way to provide jobs for people when 
you get above 20 percent.
  And the majority's party plan, the plan proposed by the chairman of 
the Ways and Means Committee and supported by the Speaker of the House 
in her first comments, what that plan does is move us upwards of 24 
percent of gross domestic product. Mr. Speaker, that is a frightening 
prospect. That is not the kind of leadership, I believe, that the 
American people bargained for last November. The kind of leadership 
that they wanted, that they desired, were individuals to work together 
for solutions.
  And the yellow line down here, Mr. Speaker, is a solution. It is 
called the Taxpayer Choice Act. It is uplifting, optimistic, 
enthusiastic support of the American people. It says, Mr. and Mrs. 
American, you know what to do with your money more than we do; and we 
believe that so strongly, we are not going to increase taxes on you. If 
you work harder, you will be able to keep more money. You will be able 
to appreciate the fruits of your labor. Isn't that what America is all 
about, Mr. Speaker? To be able to reward hard work and reward success 
and reward entrepreneurship and reward vision? That is what America is 
all about. That is what my constituents tell me when I go home.
  So my constituents are concerned, which is why the numbers for 
Congress are so very, very low. An 11 percent approval rate of the 
United States Congress by the American people. Again, that troubles me. 
This is a wonderful, fine institution. It works best when people work 
together positively for their constituents.
  So I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I 
challenge them to embrace them in the SCHIP arena, embrace a positive 
bill which provides reauthorization for the bill but ensures that moms 
and dads and families and kids can be able to make health care 
decisions with their doctor without the intervention of the Federal or 
State government.
  As a physician, I know oh so well how the intervention of the State 
and Federal Government into the practice of medicine destroys the 
ability to take care of people. It makes it so you can't provide 
quality health care for children and moms and dads.
  There are alternatives to that. H.R. 3888, the More Children More 
Choices Act. More kids being insured, the same number of kids proposed 
by the other side, but more choices. More personal ownership and more 
ability to control one's future.
  In the area of taxes, Mr. Speaker, the alternative is clear. It is 
allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. It is what 
we have done for the last 6 years. It has resulted in the largest 
economic boom we have seen in a number of decades. In fact, it has 
resulted in the largest economic boom that we have seen since taxes 
were decreased before in the sixties and the eighties under President 
Kennedy and President Reagan. And what we saw under them was increasing 
revenues to the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an incredible privilege to come to this floor and 
present ideas and speak on behalf on our constituents in a positive and 
optimistic and enthusiastic way. I encourage my colleagues to embrace 
the kind of optimism and enthusiasm we have for America. And if this 
majority party would do just that, I promise you that the ratings for 
this Congress would increase. I look forward to joining my colleagues 
in that positive and upbeat way.

                          ____________________