[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5468-5473]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, I appreciate that recognition. I 
want to thank the leadership on the Republican side for the opportunity 
to address once again the House of Representatives and talk about some 
important issues that our Nation is dealing with, and bring the latest 
version of the Official Truth Squad. This is a group of folks who have 
determined to try to bring some sunlight and some truth to the issues 
that we talk about here in Washington. And after the last hour, Mr. 
Speaker, a lot of truth needs to be shed, because the amount of 
misinformation and disinformation that our friends on the other side of 
the aisle have put forward needs to be corrected, and so we are here as 
the Official Truth Squad to do just that. It is a great privilege, and 
I want to thank the Republican Conference, the Republican leadership 
for that opportunity.
  The Official Truth Squad started as a group of freshmen last term who 
were frustrated by, as I said, the disinformation and the 
misinformation that was perpetrated and brought forward on this House 
floor day after day after day after day, and we thought that it was 
appropriate to get together and attempt to bring some light to issues, 
attempt to bring some facts to issues. And we have a favorite quote.
  We have a lot of favorite quotes, but one of our favorite quotes is 
indeed one of my favorite quotes that I think crystallizes exactly what 
the mission is here. And in Washington it is so difficult to try to get 
to the second clause of this sentence. But this is from Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan, Senator Moynihan, a former United States Senator from the 
State of New York and a former United States representative of the 
United Nations, a wonderful gentleman, a very wise individual. And he 
said, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own 
facts.'' Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own 
facts.
  So it is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that we come to the floor 
tonight and talk about a number of issues, and try to shed some of that 
light, try to bring some facts to the table.
  We get visited oftentimes here in Washington by folks who are 
constituents, folks from back home. They come here and they visit us, 
and they talk about the kinds of issues that are important to them. And 
today, Mr. Speaker, and yesterday in Washington we have been visited, 
all of us have been visited, I know, by members of the VFW, by the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars. And it is very humbling to sit and to talk 
with members of the VFW, to listen to their stories, to hear their 
concerns, to appreciate the challenges that they have and the issues 
that they believe Congress ought to be addressing.
  These are truly heroes. They are truly heroes from previous conflicts 
that our Nation has been involved in. And it is distressing when you 
talk to these members of the VFW and you hear their same kinds of 
concerns about facts.
  Many of them from my district came, and they wanted to know why there 
was not the kind of correct information that was getting out on the 
floor of the House of Representatives, why we weren't talking about the 
truth as it relates to, not just our veterans, but the current 
situation in the world. They were extremely concerned that so many of 
our friends on the other side of the aisle were distorting the truth, 
were not bringing real information to the American people, and were 
causing great challenges for all of us to try to do the right thing as 
it relates to our Nation and to our members of the military right now 
who are defending liberty around the globe, and to assist veterans in 
their time of need. And so I shared my concern with them about the 
information that was being brought forth, especially about the 
situation in Iraq.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have heard what the strategy of the 
Democrats is as it relates to Iraq. They have preemptively surrendered. 
One of their Members has defined what has been described as a slow-
bleed policy. It kind of gives you chills when you think about it, Mr. 
Speaker, a slow-bleed policy. That individual was interviewed 2 or 3 
weeks ago, and during that period of time when asked how is he going to 
institute this, how is he going to institute this slow-bleed policy on 
the military as a Member of the House of Representatives, an 
influential Member of the House, a member of the majority party, a 
member who has an opportunity to do great things, and what he has said 
is, ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the 
deployment. They won't have the equipment.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is chilling. That is chilling.
  It is made all the more disgusting because of the comments of our own 
Speaker who said that funds would never be cut off from our troops in 
harm's way. And here the individual who is charged with developing the 
strategy for the majority party in the House of Representatives on Iraq 
says, ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the 
deployment. They won't have the equipment.''
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know about you, but I get e-mails and 
communications sent to me from constituents who are serving in Iraq. I 
know men and women who are serving in Iraq who are doing their duty. To 
have a Member of the House of Representatives in a remarkably 
influential role say he is going to do all he can to limit the 
equipment that will protect our men and women in harm's way in Iraq and 
around the world is deplorable. It is deplorable.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a fact. Not an opinion, not my opinion. That is 
a fact. That is what he said. That is what he plans on doing. That is 
what he said he will work to convince his party to do.
  About that same time, our Speaker was quoted as making the following 
claim, ``Democrats have proposed a different course of action over and 
over again, and we have suggested a different plan.'' That is the 
claim. That is the facts of the statement.
  The truth, according to United States Senator Joe Lieberman who has 
been a stalwart in recognizing the danger that the world finds itself 
in and recognizing the importance of supporting our troops who are in 
harm's way, the truth, as he states it, is, ``Any alternatives that I 
have heard ultimately don't work. They are all about failing. They are 
all about withdrawing. And I think allowing Iraq to collapse would be a 
disaster for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, and for us.''

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. Speaker, I find the double talk that is coming out of the 
majority party's mouth at this time as it relates to protecting our 
troops and fighting for freedom and liberty to be not only 
disingenuous, I find it to be a disservice to the American people, 
because when we are not talking about facts, it is impossible to reach 
the right conclusion.
  All of us come to this body with various experiences, different 
backgrounds, different professions, different

[[Page 5469]]

work experience. Mine is as a physician. I spent over 20 years, nearly 
25 years practicing medicine. And I knew that when I took care of 
patients, that if I didn't do my level best to make certain that I had 
made the right diagnosis, that I had dealt with truthful items to get 
to the right diagnosis, I couldn't institute the right treatment.
  And so I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues that unless we 
recognize truthful statements, unless we recognize the facts that are 
presented to us, that we will not make the right diagnosis. And I would 
suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the other side, the majority party has 
failed to make the correct diagnosis, so it will be difficult for them 
to institute the right treatment.
  Now, I won't go so far as to say, although I might be legitimate in 
doing so, that occasionally, when physicians make the wrong diagnosis, 
they are charged with malpractice. But I would ask my friends on the 
other side of the aisle to appreciate and recognize that truth will get 
you to the right diagnosis, which will allow all of us to work together 
to identify what the right treatment ought to be.
  And that is in the case with this reprehensible, ``slow bleed'' 
policy that has been put forward by the majority party, as much it is 
with the rest of the policies that we will address, some of which we 
will address tonight.
  I want to just highlight a couple other matters as it relates to this 
``slow bleed'' policy. And Mr. Speaker, as you know what that has been 
defined as is cutting off the funding or decreasing the funding, not 
for the troops specifically but for the equipment, for the logistics, 
for the support staff that is required, all of the things that make it 
so our men and women can be secure in the knowledge that they are able 
to have all the equipment and the personnel available to protect 
themselves and to carry out their mission.
  So, once again, the quote from our Speaker, another quote from our 
Speaker about, almost now 2 months ago, from January 19, 2007. The 
quote was, ``Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when 
they are in harm's way.''
  The reality is, and it goes into a broken promise that I believe, we 
believe, the other side is getting very adept at. They are continuing 
to break promises that they make with the American people over and over 
again. This one, the promise was, we will never cut off funding for the 
troops.
  The reality, according to Mr. John Conyers, Representative John 
Conyers, ``The founders of our country gave our Congress the power of 
the purse because they envisioned a scenario exactly like we find 
ourselves in today. Not only is it in our power, it is our obligation. 
It is our obligation to stop President Bush.''
  Another quote from Representative Maxine Waters, Representative from 
California, made just a couple of weeks ago, ``I will not vote for one 
dime. I will not vote for one dime.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, we see the promises that are being made, that are 
being talked about to the American people, but the truth of the matter 
is that the majority party is continuing to break promises, and I find 
that very distressing. I also find that of great concern to being able, 
once again, to reach the right diagnosis of the challenges that we have 
before us and then moving forward with the correct treatment.
  I want to talk for a little bit, now, Mr. Speaker, about another item 
that has, another issue that has not had a whole lot of light from the 
other side of the aisle on it, and that is our economy and the 
remarkable economic growth that this Nation has seen over the last 
three to 4 years.
  If you look at truth, and you look at facts, one would have to admit 
that this has been a remarkably robust economy. We have now seen nearly 
3\1/2\ years of solid, consistent economic expansion which followed the 
downturn, the economic downturn and the recession of 2001.
  The measure of economic expansion can be measured by all sorts of 
different parameters, and we are going to look at a couple of them this 
evening. Measure of economic expansion can be measured by real GDP 
growth, gross domestic product growth. And that has averaged a robust 
3.6 percent since the enactment of what, Mr. Speaker? Tax reductions in 
2003. The tax relief measures of 2003 have resulted in, I believe, we 
believe, a remarkably robust economy.
  And so as we move through these facts tonight, as we move through 
these measures, it is important to appreciate, well, how did that all 
come about? Why did that happen? It didn't just happen willy nilly. And 
so what we have seen over the last 3\1/2\ years is a remarkably robust 
growth in the gross domestic product; 3.6 percent, as I mentioned, over 
that period of time. Mr. Speaker, that is faster than the averages of 
the 1970, which was 3.4 percent, the 1980s, which was 3.1 percent, and 
I know this will come as a shock to some folks, Mr. Speaker, but those 
glory days of the 1990s, when we all thought that the economy was 
booming as rapidly as it could and as good as it could; in fact, that 
growth during the 1990s was 3.3 percent, again, compared to 3.6 percent 
since the tax reductions, appropriate tax reductions in 2003.
  What we have on this chart, Mr. Speaker, is the unemployment rate, 
and it is another kind of gauge of how the economy is doing. How many 
jobs is our economy creating? And that is the good news, Mr. Speaker, 
that since June of 2003, 7.4 million new jobs; 7.4 million new jobs, 
Mr. Speaker, which is a remarkable number, an average of 169,000 new 
jobs each and every month.
  Now, you would say, well, that had just been going on just like that 
before the reductions in the tax rates in 2003. But this poster, Mr. 
Speaker, speaks to that. What this poster shows is the level of 
unemployment, the percent level of unemployment in our Nation and plots 
it over a period of time.
  Here on the far left portion of the graph, we have 2001, and on the 
far right portion, we have 2007. So over the past 7 years, 6 to 7 
years, what we see is this red line that demonstrates the level of 
unemployment. And we see it climbing from a rate of mid 4 percent until 
2003, at this point where it reached its apex, its highest amount of 
about 6.3 percent. And at that point, something happened.
  Something happened, Mr. Speaker. And what happened was that this 
administration recognized and this Congress recognized that the economy 
needed stimulating, needed some encouragement, needed some investment. 
And our good friends on the other side of the aisle oftentimes say, 
well, when the economy needs more money what we need to do is to get 
more taxes from the American people. We need to take more money from 
them so that government has the amount of money that it needs to be 
able to do whatever they would like to do with revenue that comes into 
the Federal Government.
  But what we understand, and what fiscal conservatives understand and 
what true historians understand is that, when you cut taxes, when you 
decrease taxes on the American people, revenue goes up, the economy 
booms, and jobs are created. And that is what happened in 2003, Mr. 
Speaker. And you see, since then, a steady decline in the unemployment 
rate. Why? Because the American people had more money in their back 
pocket, because American people know best how to spend their money, not 
government. It is not the government's money. It is the American 
people's money. And when they have that money and can make those 
decisions, those personal financial decisions, then our Nation is 
helped in ways that are incalculable. Incalculable. And what happens is 
that the economy grows, the economy booms, and more jobs are created.
  What about household net worth? We have heard, well, it is not 
getting down to real people. It is not getting down to those who own 
homes. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are more individuals, more people, 
more percent and more numbers of Americans owning homes now than ever 
before in the history of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, that is a good thing. 
That is a good thing.
  I know there is a lot of doom and gloom out there, and a lot of 
people in this town don't want the American people to know that there 
are some

[[Page 5470]]

good things that are happening in our Nation. I, frankly, get tired of 
all the naysayers. I know that people in my district do as well, 
because they know what is happening on the ground and what is happening 
out there across America is that more Americans own their home now than 
ever before in the history of our Nation.
  And that is not just absolute numbers. That is a percent. Nearly 70 
percent of the American people own their home. That is a record. That 
is a record, Mr. Speaker.
  And when you look at household net worth, household net worth, the 
value of homes for the American people has reached an all-time historic 
high, and in the last year, it increased by 7 percent. We see the 
unemployment rate down to 4.6 percent in January of this year.
  We talked about some averages for economic growth over the last 
couple of decades, comparing now, where we are right now, to where we 
have been over the last couple of decades.
  What about unemployment? Well, the unemployment rate that we have 
right now, at 4.6 percent, is lower than the average for the 1960s, 
1970s, 1980s, and yes, Mr. Speaker, the 1990s, too. Isn't that 
something? That is wonderful news. That is great news. And I would 
suggest to my colleagues in the House that it would be important to 
relay that news to your constituents. That is a good thing.
  The average rate in the 1960s of unemployment was 4.8 percent. Right 
now, 4.6 percent. The average for the 1970s, difficult time, 6.2 
percent. Right now, Mr. Speaker, 4.6 percent. The average through the 
1970s, 7.3. Right now, Mr. Speaker, 4.6 percent. And you remember the 
1990s? Again, that wonderful time, those halcyon days of the 1990s, 
when our economy was booming and everybody was doing just grand?
  Well, Mr. Speaker, the average unemployment rate in the 1990s was 5.8 
percent. Today, 4.6 percent. Mr. Speaker, that is a fact.
  And remember, Mr. Speaker, people are entitled, as Senator Moynihan 
used to say, they are entitled to their opinion, but they are not 
entitled to their own facts.
  And then we hear, well, there are jobs, yes, but they are not good 
jobs. They are not real jobs. They aren't jobs that have seen any real 
economic growth. Well, let's look at some facts there, too, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Productivity growth, which is a fundamental driver of the potential 
long-term economic growth, what kind of productivity, what kind of 
output our economy is producing, grew at a rate of 2.1 percent in 2006. 
The average growth between 1993 and 2000, remember those halcyon days, 
Mr. Speaker, the average growth during that period of time in 
productivity was 1.8 percent.

                              {time}  1915

  The average growth now, productivity growth: 2.1 percent.
  So, Mr. Speaker, these are good days from an economic standpoint.
  And then wage growth, we hear from some of our friends on the other 
side of the aisle, well, they just aren't good jobs. Real wage growth 
isn't happening. But wage growth plus benefits growth, total 
compensation, which had lagged behind productivity growth earlier in 
this recovery, surged in the last year, in 2006. It was up 6.3 percent, 
6.3 percent on an analyzed rate in the fourth quarter of 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, that is good news. That is good news. I would once again 
urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to convey that good news 
to their constituents. And then I would urge them to ask why is that 
happening, why have we seen this kind of good news.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, it is because of the appropriate tax reductions 
that this Congress, this administration passed on to the American 
people in 2003.
  We have many folks who will say, well, when you cut taxes, what 
happens is that the government doesn't have enough money to be able to 
do what it needs to do. And that sounds plausible, I guess. But when 
you look at what really happens, when you look at what happens 
historically and you look at what has happened with this tax reduction 
in 2003, what we have seen is a significant increase in revenue coming 
into the Federal Government. And it ought not be a surprise, Mr. 
Speaker, because in the two major tax reductions that have occurred in 
this Nation over the last 45 years, the tax reductions of President 
Reagan's administration and, yes, Mr. Speaker, the tax reductions of 
President Kennedy's administration, both of those tax reductions saw a 
significant increase in the amount of revenue that comes into the 
Federal Government. And why is that? It seems kind of counterintuitive. 
Why is that?
  Well, again, when you allow the American people to make decisions 
about their own money and not have the government making decisions 
about that money, they decide for themselves when to save or to spend 
or invest that money, and what that does is stimulate the economy in 
ways that the government never, never can stimulate.
  And consequently what you see, Mr. Speaker, is this kind of graph: 
here we have the capital gains tax revenues. These are revenues from 
taxes on the gains that are seen across all types of investments. And 
what we have is the amount of money from that capital gains that came 
into the Federal Government in the years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 on 
the same track as heading for 2007. And the yellow line on the bottom 
here, Mr. Speaker, is the projection that the CBO, the Congressional 
Budget Office, made prior to the tax reductions, appropriate tax 
reductions. So we see a gradual, steady increase in the amount of money 
coming into the Federal Government based upon capital gains tax 
revenue. The same graph would hold for dividend taxation revenue.
  And what we see actually happened when the tax reductions were 
instituted is the blue line, and it tracked a little bit above it for 
the first year. But what we always see, when you keep tax reductions in 
place, is more economic development, more job growth, more gross 
domestic product growth, more revitalization of the economy; and so 
what happens is that annual revenues coming into the Federal Government 
actually increase, and they increase by a huge amount. Increase by a 
huge amount.
  The tax relief has resulted in significant economic growth that has 
resulted in significantly higher tax revenue. After the declines from 
2000 to 2003, revenue surged in 2004, 2005, and 2006. In 2005 the 
revenues grew by 14.6 percent. In 2006 they were up by 11.8 percent.
  This next statement, Mr. Speaker, is important because it speaks to 
the permanence and the penetration of the result of these tax 
reductions and how they affect the economy and how they affect our 
Nation. Those two revenue increases, 14.6 percent in 2005 and 11.8 
percent in 2006, that was the first time since the mid-1980s, and you 
will recall that that was the last time we had significant tax 
reductions, the first time since the mid-1980s that our Nation has 
generated double-digit revenue growth in consecutive years. Remarkable, 
Mr. Speaker. It really is.
  And I would think that any individual charged with representing this 
Nation and charged with having some input into how to keep this economy 
moving and how to generate more growth in this economy would want to 
know why, why did that happen? What happened in 2003 to turn that 
around?
  And it is still continuing. Revenues continue to surge in fiscal year 
2007. Through the first 4 months of the year, revenues are up by 9.8 
percent, with 12.6 percent for individual receipts and 22.1 percent for 
corporate receipts.
  Mr. Speaker, these are incredible numbers, truly incredible numbers. 
So one would think that Members of the House of Representatives, 
Members of the Senate, who are charged with formulating national policy 
that by any estimation anybody would look at these numbers and say, 
yes, that kind of looks pretty good, maybe we ought to continue that. 
And if you are charged with developing policy, Federal policy, national 
policy that results in these kinds of good numbers, you would think 
that they would want to know why, how did that happen.

[[Page 5471]]

  How did that happen? Well, there are some other charts that I would 
like to share with you that will demonstrate how that happened and the 
effect of it.
  I think it is always helpful, Mr. Speaker, to compare what happened 
before the tax reductions and what has happened since because unless 
you can point to a date on the calendar when something concrete changed 
and identify the occurrences in this Nation from an economic standpoint 
before that date and after that date, it becomes difficult to answer 
that question why, why did these seemingly good things happen?
  So this poster here demonstrates business investment before and after 
the tax relief of 2003. And this is remarkably telling. As you see, the 
middle line here is the percent of business investment, either 
increased investment or decreased investment. And you could say, Mr. 
Speaker, that through 2001 and 2002 and the first quarter of 2003, 
virtually all of those quarters had decreased business growth or 
investment. In fact, the average was a decrease of 5.6 percent. And 
that is a decrease from year to year to year. So, in fact, the 
cumulative amount of decreased investment is huge.
  And then something happened here. Mr. Speaker, on this vertical line, 
something happened. And it answers the question why, why did we see 
these remarkable improvements? And it was the appropriate tax 
reductions of 2003. And these are undeniable numbers. This is the 
business investment after the tax reductions of 2003, and they have 
averaged since that time 7.29 percent every quarter. So you see it over 
and over and over and over again. In fact, we have had 15 straight 
quarters of economic business investment increase. And that is not 
because the business of America says it is not a good idea to invest, 
it is not a good idea to grow. That is because they say it is a great 
idea. And the policies that have been put in place at the Federal 
Government level will result in their opportunity to succeed, their 
opportunity for their employees to succeed, the opportunity for 
employees to then take that success from the company and from the 
employee and go buy homes and go buy cars and go buy all sorts of items 
that are needed by each and every American. And what happens then is 
that it just becomes a wonderfully self-perpetuating cycle.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the reason that it is important to look at this and 
the reason that I am talking about this tonight and that we on our side 
of the aisle are trying to bring truth and light to this issue is 
because there is a plan on the other side of the aisle to do away with 
the tax reductions that have resulted in all this wonderful, wonderful 
economic news. And that is just baffling to me when I think about again 
the challenge, the charge that each of us in this House has, which is 
to, I believe, develop policies that will work to the benefit of the 
vast majority and as many Americans as possible.
  And these types of numbers here, these facts, Mr. Speaker, not 
opinions, but facts, demonstrate that that is exactly and precisely 
what the tax reductions have done from 2003. And they have done so by 
decreasing also the budget deficit. And, again, if the economy is 
booming to a greater degree, if it is more successful, more people 
working, more people investing, more people participating in the 
American Dream, that is a good thing. And what happens is that more 
revenue comes into the Federal Government, and what happens, Mr. 
Speaker, to the budget deficit? It decreases. It goes down. In fact, if 
we allow the tax reductions to remain in place, which is what we 
absolutely ought to do, and some of our friends on the other side of 
the aisle, some of our friends in the majority party have already said 
they don't believe any of those tax reductions ought to remain in 
place, that every American ought to have a tax increase, but if we 
allow them to stay in place, what this chart demonstrates, Mr. Speaker, 
is that the budget will balance of its own accord because of the 
policies already in place within a 4-year period of time. Within a 4-
year period of time.
  Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle, they will come up to 
the well of the House and they will say, sure we have got to balance 
the budget, but we have got to raise taxes to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, it just isn't so. It just isn't so. So I would encourage 
all Members of the House to look at these numbers, to appreciate the 
trend that has occurred, the facts of the economic numbers that we have 
available to us in this Nation, and to appreciate that there is a 
reason, there is a reason that more people are working now. There is a 
reason that more people are owning their own home. There is a reason 
that more individuals are able to invest in this economy. There is a 
reason that there is more money coming into the Federal Government. And 
that reason is we are allowing more Americans to keep more of their 
hard-earned money.
  Oftentimes I hear in committee meetings many Members of Congress who 
will talk about the government's money as if it is the government's, as 
if it is ours in Congress, that we have ownership of this money and 
that we ought to be able to just spend it as we please without absolute 
priorities.
  We heard our good friends earlier this evening talk about PAYGO, pay-
as-you-go, making certain that new programs that come before the 
Congress, that any costs for those new programs will be offset by 
decreasing the expenditures for another program. But what they don't 
tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that in that small print of the rules that 
they have passed, it doesn't apply to the vast majority of the budget. 
It doesn't apply. And, in fact, what the Rules Committee upstairs does 
over and over and over again is to say we are going to bring this bill 
to the floor and we are going to adopt this program and we will adopt 
it and not require it to comply with the PAYGO rules that this House 
has supposedly adopted.
  That is what happened in the very first 100 hours, Mr. Speaker, the 
vaunted 100 hours, that period of time when the new majority was taking 
this Nation in what they called a ``new direction.'' Well, they were. 
And the direction they were taking them was into the red, further into 
the red, by spending more money without any offsets.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think that is what the American people voted for 
in November of 2006. I just don't believe that. And when I go home, 
that is what people tell me at home. They don't believe that the 
Federal Government ought to be spending more money. They think that we 
ought to be decreasing the expenditures, not increasing them.
  So the challenge from an economic standpoint is truly the size of the 
Federal budget and the lack of ability of this Congress, this new 
majority Congress, to prioritize where it wants to spend the hard-
earned taxpayer money.

                              {time}  1930

  Again, Mr. Speaker, it is not the government's money. It is not the 
government's money. It is the American people's money, and they work 
hard, hard, for that money, and we ought to be very diligent about how 
we address spending their hardearned money.
  I believe that we ought to allow them to keep a whole lot more of 
their hardearned money. I believe, if you look objectively at the facts 
of our economy right now, we are moving along pretty well. But there is 
caution on the horizon.
  We are moving down a highway, and we are ticking along pretty well, 
our speed is pretty much at the speed limit, but the signs are 
flashing. They are flashing, and they are saying, caution ahead, 
caution ahead, because, in our Federal budget, there is automatic 
spending that is occurring, and it is occurring primarily in three 
programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, three wonderfully 
successful programs providing great comfort and assurance to the 
individuals who receive the benefits from those programs.
  Each of those programs have been promises made to the American 
people, and those programs ought to continue for the individuals who 
are eligible for those programs currently in the manner in which they 
were instituted. But if we continue them in that manner for every 
American who reaches that wonderful age of 62 or 65 and becomes 
eligible for them, then this is what happens, Mr. Speaker.

[[Page 5472]]

  This chart demonstrates the entitlement programs, and I don't like 
that word ``entitlement,'' I like the word ``automatic,'' because it is 
automatic spending. It just keeps on going. These programs have a 
formula built into them that generates increased money going into those 
programs year after year after year because there are more individuals 
who become eligible for them, because of the demographics of our 
society. But we are an aging society. There are more individuals who 
are becoming eligible for these programs, and consequently, it takes 
more money.
  This poster demonstrates the percentage of the Federal budget that is 
generated in tax revenue, and this line here is the revenue of the 
Federal budget. So we average somewhere a little below 20 percent of 
the gross domestic product coming in as tax revenue. If we continue 
that right along, that is, if we don't raise taxes on the American 
people, which is what we are committed to doing, that is, not raising 
taxes, this is about the level of revenue that we will have as a 
nation.
  Down below are the fiscal years starting with 2007, this year, and 
moving forward all the way to 2050. People say well, that is a long way 
away, and they are absolutely right. But if no changes are made in 
these three programs, Medicare being the blue, Medicaid being the 
yellow and Social Security being the green, this chart demonstrates 
that those three programs, those three automatic spending programs, 
will consume the entire Federal budget, the entire Federal budget by 
the year 2045 or 2046.
  That seems like a long way away, Mr. Speaker, but do you know what? 
That is under 40 years from now. Under 40 years ago was the late 
sixties, and I remember the late sixties very well. Many of us will 
remember when the United States landed on the moon. That is about 40 
years ago, 38 years ago. Many individuals, most individuals who were 
alive at the time will certainly remember when President Kennedy was 
assassinated. On the one hand, it seems a long time ago. On the other 
hand, it doesn't seem like very long at all. It doesn't seem like very 
long at all. So this is not a long way away.
  What this is screaming at us, what this is shouting at us, what this 
is saying to us as we travel down that road and those caution lights 
are flashing, is that we as a United States Congress, in order to be 
wise and prudent and spend taxpayer money appropriately, these programs 
need to be reformed. We need to keep the solemn promise that we have 
with the American people who are in these programs currently, and we 
need to make certain that we move forward aggressively and actively 
with programs that will make it so these are financially sound 
programs.
  Now, there are a couple ways you can go. There are a couple 
directions you can head when you reform programs like this. The real 
question that becomes asked when you reform these kinds of programs is 
this question, Mr. Speaker. It is the question that is really being 
shouted right now in Washington. That is the question, who decides? Who 
decides?
  We all come to Washington as Members of Congress with different 
experiences, as I mentioned. We come to Washington with different 
political stripes. We come to Washington with different political 
philosophies. We come to Washington with various degrees of 
understanding or appreciation for our Nation's history and how we 
became great.
  Right now, we are at a crossroads, Mr. Speaker. We are at a 
crossroads for our financial programs. We are at a crossroads for so 
many of our social programs. We are at a crossroads for, I believe, our 
Nation when it relates to freedom and liberty. And the question being 
asked is, who decides?
  Are we going to, with our tax policy, allow the Federal Government to 
make more and more decisions as it relates to how to spend the hard 
earned taxpayers' money? Are we going to allow the Federal Government 
to be the ones that prioritize how the American pocketbook ought to be 
spent? Are we going to allow the Federal Government to increase its 
involvement in American lives?
  Our friends in the majority party talk about new direction. Mr. 
Speaker, that is the new direction that I see. When they talk about it, 
bill after bill and policy after policy, if you look at each and every 
one, whatever the policy is, the question that they are answering is, 
who decides?
  Their answer to that question, more often than not, Mr. Speaker, is 
that the Federal Government ought to be deciding, not the States, not 
the local communities and not the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe firmly in the rectitude of decisions 
made by the American people. I believe strongly that decisions are best 
when left to the American people, about almost anything. I believe that 
the American people know best how to spend their hardearned money.
  That is why I believe that it is incumbent upon all of us to ask 
those questions, why is the economy doing as well as it is right now, 
appreciating the truth in the facts that have been presented this 
evening that demonstrate that the reason that the economy is doing so 
well right now is because Americans have more of their hardearned money 
in their back pocket so that they can decide when they spend or they 
save or invest their money. What that results in is the ability and the 
opportunity for them to make those personal decisions; not the Federal 
Government.
  So, Mr. Speaker, when you see people coming down to the floor of the 
House and they are asking questions about or asking their colleagues to 
support this program or that program or this policy or that policy, I 
would ask you to think about this question: Well, who is deciding? Who 
are they asking to make decisions in this bill? And more often than 
not, Mr. Speaker, I think you will appreciate that this new majority, 
the Democrat majority that is currently controlling this House of 
Representatives, is answering that question with the Federal 
Government. The Federal Government is deciding.
  I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I am a physician. In my 
previous life, I was a doctor. I practiced medicine outside of Atlanta 
for nearly 25 years. I have great concerns about the direction of 
health care in our Nation.
  We are at one of those crossroads, and this is the question that this 
Congress will have to answer as it relates to health care: Who decides? 
Who is going to be allowed to make personal health care decisions? Is 
it going to be patients and doctors, is it going to be families and 
their children, along with the guidance of a medical professional, or 
is it going to be the Federal Government? Is it going to be individuals 
in buildings around this Capitol and around this Nation who may or may 
not have any medical training or any medical experience at all that 
will be making decisions, personal health care decisions, for people?
  I don't think that is the direction in which we ought to go, Mr. 
Speaker, and I don't think that is what the American people believe we 
ought to do as it relates to health care, and I certainly don't believe 
that that is the new direction that the American people thought they 
were going to get when they went to the polls last November.
  You say, well, what kind of program could that be? Well, Mr. Speaker, 
there are a number of proposals that have been put forward by members 
of the majority party, and not just freshman members, not just members 
who don't have any input, real input, into the nuts and bolts of health 
care policy that is coming forward. In fact, what we have are the 
chairs of the committees of jurisdiction, the chair of the House Ways 
and Means Committee that has jurisdiction over health care and the 
chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee that has jurisdiction over 
health care in this Nation.
  Those individuals, certainly the latter, has said that what he 
believes we ought to move toward in terms of health care in this Nation 
is what he describes as Medicare for all. Medicare for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell you that all patients have to do 
around this Nation, all citizens have to do around

[[Page 5473]]

this Nation, is the next time they talk to their doctor, ask their 
doctor, do you believe that our health care system would be better if 
it were to look like Medicare? Do you believe that my personal 
insurance would be better if it were like Medicare? Do you believe that 
allowing the Federal Government to make health care decisions like they 
do in Medicare for our entire Nation is the right way to go?
  I don't believe that is the case, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe that 
is what the American people want, and I know, I know that when patients 
ask their doctors around this Nation, that is not what they will want.
  Why? Why wouldn't we want Medicare for all? Let me give you an 
example or two, Mr. Speaker.
  We had a huge debate a couple of years ago in this Nation about 
whether or not Medicare ought to cover prescription medication for 
Medicare recipients. That debate went on for a few years. It was a 
proposal by this administration, passed by this Congress in 2003, and 
we have seen that program instituted over the past 14 months, 15 
months, and it is a relatively successful program.
  But I don't want to talk about the merits of the program, because 
that is a different debate. I want to talk, Mr. Speaker, about a 
program that takes 40 years to decide that it needs to cover 
prescription medication for seniors in this Nation. That is Medicare. 
It is a government program that cannot, it is impossible for it to be 
responsive to people. It is impossible for it to incorporate the kind 
of new inventions and wonderful treatment options that are available to 
the American people in a private system. It is impossible for them to 
be able to incorporate those treatment changes to benefit patients.
  Why is it impossible? Because it is a massive government bureaucracy, 
and a massive government bureaucracy cannot be by its very definition 
nimble and flexible and responsive to the American people. And that is 
the answer to this question, who decides? Who decides?
  This new majority thinks that the Federal Government ought to be 
deciding personal health care decisions for people. I, and most of my 
colleagues on our side of the aisle, simply believe that ought not be 
the case; that patients and doctors, that families and children in 
consultation with their doctor, that those people ought to be the ones 
that are making those personal health care decisions.
  So I urge my colleagues to ask as we go through the next number of 
months, as we go through the kind of policy suggestions and bills that 
will come to the floor, to ask this question. I know what my answer is. 
Who ought to decide in terms of the policies that we brought forward? I 
know what my answer is. I believe that the American people ought to be 
the ones deciding.

                              {time}  1945

  I believe that the American people ought to be the ones that have an 
opportunity to say, I think that my hard-earned money ought to be spent 
in this way. I ought to be allowed to decide when to spend or save or 
invest my money, not the Federal Government, not the Federal 
Government. As well intentioned as they are, and individuals who work 
in the Federal Government by and large are extremely well intentioned, 
they are encumbered by the very apparatus that is in place because of 
the size and massive nature of our Federal Government. It is impossible 
for them to be responsive to the American people. It is impossible for 
them to be as nimble as they ought to be, to be as flexible as they 
ought to be.
  Health care is one example where science is exploding, and all sorts 
of wonderful opportunities are available for the treatment of disease. 
But should we in this House of Representatives be the ones deciding 
what kind of health care treatment ought to be given in a very 
particular instance? I would say no. Those decisions ought to be the 
decisions of people, individuals with their doctor and their family.
  So I urge my colleagues as we look at the issues that come before us 
over the next number of months to ask this question: Who decides? Who 
ought to decide? I think if they answer honestly, they will come down 
on the side that I have come down on, and that is on the side of the 
American people.
  I would encourage my colleagues when they go home this weekend when 
they talk to their constituents to ask their constituents, who do you 
think ought to decide how to spend your money? Should you, should the 
American people decide that, or should the Federal Government? Should 
the American people be able to decide what kind of health care 
treatment they ought to receive, or should the Federal Government? 
Should the American people be able to decide what kind of education 
system they want for their children, where they want their child 
educated, what kind of curriculum they want for their children in their 
community, or should that decision be made by the Federal Government?
  Huge questions, Mr. Speaker. We are at a crossroads. We are at a 
crossroads in this Nation on so many areas. Our time right now is to 
govern responsibly. It is our time to make certain that we listen to 
our constituents. It is our time to do our due diligence to make 
certain that we appreciate how we became this wonderful and glorious 
and grand and great Nation. It is our responsibility in the United 
States Congress to listen to the truth, to appreciate how we got to 
where we are right now and to incorporate the structure that allowed us 
to become this great and wonderful and glorious Nation, to be the 
Nation that truly is the beacon to all who love freedom and love 
liberty around this world. How did we become that Nation, and to 
incorporate the reasons, the rationale and the policies that brought us 
to that point into the policies that we promote to move our Nation 
forward.
  I am confident that if we do that, we will answer the question of who 
decides, with the American people being first and foremost. I am 
confident if we do that as a Congress, we will make the right 
conclusions. I am confident if we do that as Congress, we will make the 
right diagnosis for this Nation, and we will develop the right 
treatment plan as we go forward.
  I want to thank once again the leadership for allowing me the 
opportunity to come and speak to the House this evening and bring some 
truth and light to some issues that are oftentimes very complex, but 
oftentimes very simple because we ask simple questions. We ask simple 
questions: Who should decide? Should it be the American people or the 
Federal Government? Mr. Speaker, I vote for the American people.

                          ____________________