    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
    [October 31, 2007]
    [Pages 1398-1405]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at the Grocery Manufacturers Association/Food Products
    Association Fall Conference
    October 31, 2007

        Thanks for coming. Thank you all. Please be seated. Billy, thank you. I asked Billy where he works. He said,
    ``Well, I run Sunny Delight Beverage Company.'' I said, ``Well, Billy, I
    quit drinking.'' [Laughter] He said, ``That's not that kind of--
    alcohol.''
        I thank you all for having me. Billy,
    thank you for your kind words. He's from Cincinnati. I was in Cincinnati
    the other day, stopped off and got some ribs, and he tried to ask me to
    compare Texas ribs with Cincinnati ribs. That's a little unfair. But
    they're awfully good, Billy.
        I appreciate you having me for this fall conference. I'm thrilled to
    be a sitting President coming to visit with you. I didn't realize the
    last one was Eisenhower. I don't know if he came on Halloween, but I
    did. It's always an interesting day here in the Nation's Capital. This
    morning I was with the Vice President. I was
    asking him what costume he was planning. He said, ``Well, I'm already
    wearing it.'' [Laughter] Then he mumbled something about the dark side
    of the force. [Laughter] He's doing well.
        I want to talk today about health care. There's an interesting
    debate raging here in Washington, and it's an appropriate--Halloween is
    an appropriate day to talk about it, because there's a bill moving
    through the Congress that's disguised as a bill to help children, but I
    think it's really a trick on the American people. I'm going to spend
    some time explaining why I have made some decisions I have made
    regarding this piece of legislation.
        The bill that I'm going to discuss would cause moms and dads to give
    up private insurance and--private insurance for their children and move
    them on to the Government rolls. It would move us closer to a health
    care system dominated by the Federal Government. It would fund massive
    new spending by raising taxes on the American working people. I believe
    the legislation I'm going to talk to you today--about which I'm going to
    talk to you today is a path to Government-run health care, which I
    believe is the wrong path for the United States.
        And I vetoed a bill. As Billy noted, the
    spotlight can be quite bright when the President either shows up or does
    something. And I vetoed a piece of legislation. And I appreciate your
    giving me a chance to come by and explain to you and the American people
    why I did so.
        But before I do, I do want to thank you all very much for giving me
    a chance to come by. It's a--the White House is a nice place to live,
    but sometimes it's good to get outside the White House, to be with
    people who are actually making a living--[laughter]--that are creating
    jobs; that are taking risk; that are really, I hope, living the American
    Dream.
        Laura sends her best. She's doing great. I'm
    truly a lucky man to have married this great woman, and I think the
    country is lucky to have her as the First Lady.
        I want to thank Mary Fallin from Oklahoma--
    Congresswoman from Oklahoma--for joining us. Mary, thank you for being
    here. I particularly want to say something about Cal Dooley. I worked with him when he was a Member of the
    United States Congress. I found him to be a good, honest guy. When he
    said he was going to do something, he would do it. And I don't know if
    this helps him or hurts him, but you made a pretty smart move to hire
    him. And I'm proud to be with you, Cal. Thanks for being here.
        One of the reasons I've come by is to remind you how important you
    are to our economy. In other words, I'm the kind of person who believes
    that it's important for those of us in government to encourage

    [[Page 1399]]

    people to take risk and to take investment. I like to remind people, one
    of the key cornerstones of my philosophy is, I don't believe the role of
    government is to try to create wealth; it's to create the environment in
    which people are willing to risk capital to expand their businesses. And
    I appreciate the fact that every day, you're doing that. I appreciate
    the fact that you have to worry about what your customers think, that
    you tailor your goods and services to meet somebody else's demand. I
    appreciate the fact that by providing a place for people to work, you
    help American families. And I appreciate the fact that you've been a
    part of a remarkable economy.
        Just this morning, we learned that the economic growth in the third
    quarter was 3.9 percent. You hear people talking about whether our
    economy is strong or not; well, here's an indication that it's strong. A
    lot of that has to do with the ability for people to dream big dreams
    and to follow through on those dreams. I love the fact that people say,
    I own a business. Ownership is a central part of making sure this
    country is a helpful--hopeful country.
        I also am pleased to report to you that last September was America's
    49th consecutive month of job creation. It's the longest period of
    uninterrupted job growth on record. A lot of that has to do with the
    fact that we cut your taxes. There's a huge debate in Washington about
    cutting taxes. I believe if you've got more money in your treasuries to
    spend, it's more likely somebody is going to find work. I believe when
    American families have more money in their pockets to save, invest, or
    spend, it helps keep the economy strong. I believe you can spend your
    money better than the Federal Government can spend your money.
        That's the philosophy behind the tax cuts we have passed, and I
    appreciate you supporting progrowth economic policies. You understand
    that small businesses work best when there's more money at--in
    circulation amongst small businesses. Today, this afternoon, I'm going
    to sign into law an extension of the Internet tax moratorium. We're
    making some progress in convincing people in Washington that low taxes
    ought to be memorialized in permanent policy.
        Progrowth economic policies work. That's one of the things I want to
    share with you. In order to get out of a recession and recover from an
    attack on the United States, we cut taxes on everybody who pays taxes,
    because I'm not the kind of person that says, we're going to cut taxes
    on you because of your political affiliation and not because of you--on
    you because of yours. I believe if you cut taxes, the only way to--fair
    way to do so is to cut taxes on everybody who pays income taxes. And
    that's precisely what we did. And cutting taxes caused our economy to
    not only recover but grow, just like I told you, 3.9 percent in the
    third quarter for example.
        And when the economy grows, it yields more tax revenues. And by
    holding down spending, it means--and by the way, setting priorities such
    as funding our troops when they're in the harm's way--it means you can
    keep taxes low, grow the economy, set fiscal priorities, and reduce the
    deficit. And that's what's happening as I speak. And it's important for
    Congress not to unwind this process by trying to raise your taxes. And
    I'm going to use my veto pen to prevent them from doing so.
        I appreciate your support for free trade. That's another
    controversial subject. I believe opening markets for American goods and
    services will help us remain a prosperous nation. I worry about
    protectionist sentiments in America that say, well, we don't
    particularly think we can compete, so let's just wall us off. I believe
    that would be a mistake for the United States of America. So I look
    forward to working with Cal and your
    organization to convince the Congress to pass important free trade
    agreements that we have negotiated with Peru and Colombia and Panama and
    South Korea.

    [[Page 1400]]

        The United States of America must understand that there are millions
    of potential customers around the world. And it makes sense to open up
    markets for U.S. goods and services, so that--so we can compete on a
    level playing field. I want our cattlemen to understand that I spend a
    lot of time working to open up markets for U.S. beef around the world. I
    think it's good for agriculture to say, let's trade. And so we'll
    continue to press it. But I'm going to need your help convincing Members
    of Congress that it's in the national interest to be confident about our
    capacity to compete, and it's in our national interest to make sure we
    have free and fair trade.
        We're going to work together to secure the food supply. I think it's
    in the Nation's interest to work to deal with childhood obesity.
        And I think it's in the Nation's interest to expand investment in
    alternative energy sources. The reason why is, dependency on oil is not
    good for the United States of America. It's not good for economic
    security, nor is it good for national security. I really don't like to
    have our country in the position where if demand for oil goes up in the
    developing world, it causes your gasoline prices to go up. We shouldn't
    be in the position where if somebody decides to blow up a--oil
    infrastructure in another country, it causes your gasoline prices to go
    up. And I also understand that alternative sources of energy will make
    us better stewards of the environment.
        And one way to become less dependent on oil is to be able to grow
    products that empower our automobiles. And that's why I'm such a big
    believer in ethanol. And I fully understand that folks out there are
    concerned about the price of corn. I hear from my hog-raising buddies
    that ethanol--driving cars with corn is causing them to have trouble
    feeding their hogs. And that's why we're spending some of your money on
    new technologies that will enable us to use wood chips or switchgrass to
    be able to be the source for ethanol. It's called cellulosic ethanol.
        You just got to know, you're talking to--you're listening to
    somebody--you're not talking; you're listening to somebody who has got
    great faith in the capacity of America to use technologies--to develop
    technologies and use technologies to deal with significant problems, so
    long as the Government makes it clear these are priorities. And I want
    to thank you for helping us on those issues.
        We need a--[applause]. Speaking about agriculture, this afternoon
    I'm going to name a new Secretary of Agriculture. I'm not going to tell you who it is because I'm trying
    to--[laughter]--but I think you'll like him. He understands agriculture,
    of course, and he'll be a good follow-on to Mike Johanns, who did a superb job as the Secretary of Agriculture.
    And I'm going to ask the Senate, of course, to confirm this person as
    quickly as possible.
        And now I do want to spend some time on health care. I'm fully aware
    that this is a topic that is of concern to you, as it should be. And
    it's a concern to all families across the country. It's a topic of
    heated debate here in Washington. And at the root of the debate is a
    philosophical disagreement over the direction American health care--good
    people who have a different opinion on what we ought to be doing.
        Here's my philosophy, that Government ought to trust private
    medicine; that we've got a fabulous health care system. Does it have
    issues? Sure, it's got issues. But when you compare it to other health
    care systems in the world, the United States has got a fabulous health
    care system. We got great docs; we've got wonderful new technologies.
    Our system is so good that many people from around the world like to
    come here to get treatment. The goal of a good health care system is not
    to weaken the health care system, but strengthen it; and a goal is to
    bring as many Americans as possible into the private system of health

    [[Page 1401]]

    care. That ought to be a goal. And the reason why that ought to be a
    goal is because private coverage offers choice, which is good for
    consumers; flexibility, which is good for consumers; and quality of care
    that comes from competition. Private coverage puts the medical decisions
    in the right hands, and that's between the patient and the doctor. And
    that's where the decisions in health care should be.
        There's a different view in Washington. They believe--those who have
    a different view believe that expanding Federal control is the key to
    improving health care. Again, I repeat, these are good folks; they care
    about our country as much as I care about our country. They just have a
    different vision about how to deal with the health issues. At the center
    of their belief is that folks in Washington are in a--the best position
    to decide which diseases should be treated, which procedures you can
    have, and which doctors you're allowed to see. That's the essence of
    federalization of health care. They believe that massive tax increases
    are the best way to fund their plans. The truth of the matter is, if you
    federalize health care, you're going to have to have a massive tax
    increase to pay for it.
        For those who believe that, I would hope they would look around the
    world at other nations who have tried to nationalize their health care
    systems. I think what they would find is that socialized medicine has
    led to lower standards, longer waits, rationing of care. We've tried, by
    the way, here in Washington to have a major effort to put the Federal
    Government square in the center of health care in 1994, and the
    legislation didn't pass. I believe many of the Democrats in Congress who
    supported that legislation have learned from the experience. So instead
    of pushing to federalize health care all at once, they're pushing for
    the same goal through a series of incremental steps. With each step,
    they want to bring America closer to a nationalized system where the
    Government dictates the medical coverage for every citizen.
        The strategy is to expand programs for senior citizens to include
    younger citizens, to expand programs for children to include adults, and
    to expand programs for the poor to include the middle class. I'm not
    making it up. I would remind you that some in Congress recently proposed
    to lower the eligibility age for Medicare, which would allow younger
    citizens onto the Federal program. And we can now see the strategy
    clearly when you analyze the efforts to expand the State Children's
    Health Insurance Program. That's the issue I was going to talk to you
    about; SCHIP it's called. SCHIP was created to provide coverage for poor
    and uninsured children whose parents make too much money to qualify for
    Medicaid. Now, let me make sure you understand the facts. When people
    say we're not providing money for poor children, they're overlooking the
    $35.5 billion a year of your money we spend on poor children through
    Medicaid. There is a robust program to make sure poor children in
    America get health care. And that's good. If you're poor and can't
    afford health care, that's a good role of the Government is to help you.
        SCHIP was to help people who couldn't quite qualify for Medicaid to
    get help, and I supported the program. I supported the program as the
    Governor of Texas, and I support the program as President of the United
    States. And that's why the budget I submitted this year increases SCHIP
    funding by 20 percent over 5 years. So you're looking at a supporter of
    the program. As a matter of fact, I sent a signal to Congress that if we
    need some more money to focus on poor children, we'll help them find the
    money, without raising your taxes.
        And I said, we got to make sure it stays focused on poor children
    because a half

    [[Page 1402]]

    a million children who qualify for the program aren't on the program
    today. The program said, we're going to help poor children; there's a
    half a million children who qualify for the program who aren't enrolled.
    Now, it seems like to me, it makes sense that the Government ought to
    focus on enrolling those who qualify now and not expanding the program
    beyond its current reach.
        But remember, the primary goal is to increase the Federal reach into
    health care. So earlier this month, they sent me a bill that would
    expand SCHIP far beyond its original purpose. Under the proposal that
    came to my desk, more than half the children in America could be
    eligible for Government health care. In other words, by expanding
    eligibility, it means that more than half the children in America would
    become eligible for this Federal program. And to fund it, they would
    raise taxes. That's bad health policy, as far as I'm concerned, it's bad
    tax policy, and it's going to take the country in the wrong direction.
        And let me explain why. According to the Congress's own Budget
    Office, the bill Congress passed would lead one out of every three
    children who moves on to Government coverage to drop private health
    insurance. The Government provides incentives to join the Federal
    program, and people go from private health care to Government health
    care. That is the wrong direction if you believe that private medicine--
    private health care is the best medicine possible for the American
    people.
        Some of those children's parents that would be moving make nearly
    $62,000 a year. As a matter of fact, the bill I vetoed would raise
    eligibility in some places up to $83,000 a year. That's not poor. That's
    an indication that there's a strategy afoot to expand the Federal reach
    into health care. In all, 2 million American children would move from
    private insurance to the Government program, and at the same time, as I
    told you, some of the poorest children who are eligible for SCHIP may
    not be--may still not be enrolled. And adults would still be on the
    children's program. In about seven States in America, they've used the
    SCHIP money--they're spending more money on adults than they are on
    children. So adults would still be enrolled in the children's program.
    You might call that an extended trip to the fountain of youth. And the
    taxes they're going to raise to pay for it would fall on the working
    people.
        So that's why I vetoed the bill. I believe that private medicine is
    in the best interest of the country. That's the principle on which I'm
    operating, and when I got a bill that would undermine that principle, I
    vetoed it. And my veto was sustained. And then I put out the word to
    Congress, I'd like to work with you on a better bill. And unfortunately,
    the good will has not yet been returned.
        I named three members of my administration to hold
    discussions with Congress, two Cabinet officials and a senior adviser. I
    said: ``Here's three people that can speak for me. I'd like them to come
    up and sit down with you in good faith to negotiate a way to make sure
    poor children get the help they need.'' Unfortunately, the leaders
    wouldn't meet with them, nor would their designated representatives.
    Instead, the House of Representatives made a few adjustments at the
    margins of the bill and passed it again.
        Now, the bill has the same major flaws. It fails to cover poor
    children first, it shifts children with private insurance onto the
    Government rolls, and it uses taxpayers' dollars to subsidize middle
    class families, and finally, it raises taxes. But to be fair, there is
    one part of the bill that leaders in Congress changed. Somehow they
    managed to make this version cost even more over the next 5 years than
    the last version.
        If Congress sends this bill back to me, I'm going to veto it again.
    They know this. I mean, they've made it--I made it perfectly clear that
    if you keep passing this piece of legislation, I'm going to keep

    [[Page 1403]]

    vetoing it, unless, of course, it's a piece of legislation that focuses
    on poor children and does not expand the reach of the Federal Government
    into health care.
        They also understand that the veto that was sustained in the House
    will be sustained again. And yet, incredibly enough, the Senate is going
    to debate this issue. I view this as a pure political exercise, and I
    urge the Senate not to waste time on a bill that they know I will veto
    and will be sustained. Whatever our differences, we need to keep the
    important program going. I understand that. No poor child should lose
    health care because of Washington, DC, politics.
        Philosophical divide isn't going to go away anytime soon, but there
    are some commonsense steps that Republicans and Democrats can take to
    help Americans who struggle with health care. There's some positive
    things that we can do.
        For example, Congress should expand innovative products known as
    health savings accounts, which allow people to pay lower insurance
    premiums, to save tax-free for routine medical expenses, and to be able
    to take such an account from job to job.
        You know, a startling statistic is that if you're 30 years old, you
    probably have worked five, six, or seven jobs by the time you reach 30.
    This is a very mobile workforce. And it seems like to me that we ought
    to have products that enable somebody to take their own insurance policy
    with them from job to job, and a health savings account is such a
    policy. And if you're a small-business owner, I strongly urge you to
    take a look at health savings accounts for your employees.
        Congress should pass association health plans, which enables small
    businesses to pool risk across jurisdictional boundaries, so you can buy
    insurance at the same discounts that large companies can. If Congress
    truly is worried about the rising cost of health care, they ought to
    enable small employers to pool risk, in other words, to be able to
    accumulate a large risk pool, so you can better afford insurance for
    your employees.
        Congress should pass medical liability reform. These junk lawsuits
    are running good doctors out of practice and are running up the cost of
    your health care bills. And if they want to address the rising cost in
    health care, they need to join me and pass substantive medical liability
    reform at the Federal level.
        When I first came to Washington, I said, ``Well, maybe this isn't
    the proper Federal role; we'll let the States handle it.'' And then when
    I began to analyze the cost to the Federal Government of these junk
    lawsuits, I determined it was a Federal role to do something about them.
    I mean, after all, we're a huge health care provider; we have Medicare,
    Medicaid, veterans' benefits, veterans' health care. Yet many of the
    doctors who we hire to provide services practice defensive medicine, so
    that if they get sued, they got a case in the courthouse that can defend
    them. These junk lawsuits are running up the cost of medicine for you,
    and they're running up the cost of medicine for the Federal Government,
    which is you. And if the Congress is seriously--wants to do something
    seriously about solving this problem, they ought to pass medical
    liability reform now.
        The amazing thing about health care, it's--when it comes to
    information technology, they're light-years behind a lot of America.
    Perhaps the best way to describe it is, is that we still got doctors
    handwriting files. They don't write very well to begin with, and files
    get lost. Health care ought to be using information technology, and the
    Federal Government, by the way, is insisting that that be the case with
    the people with whom we interface. And Congress ought to focus on
    spreading information technology throughout health care. The dream is,
    is that all of us will have a--our medical records on a little disk, a
    little chip that we can carry with us, that will be secure from prying
    eyes, but nevertheless, will be a part of wringing out cost

    [[Page 1404]]

    inefficiencies in a industry that needs to have cost inefficiencies
    wrung out.
        And finally, there ought to be more transparence. I mean, the whole
    purpose of reform is to have more consumerism in health care, not less,
    as a result of the Federal Government taking over the health care
    system. And in order to have consumerism, there has to be transparency
    in pricing and quality of care. And the best way to encourage
    consumerism is to change the Tax Code.
        Right now our Tax Code discriminates against people who are trying
    to buy an individual policy. If you work for corporate America, you get
    a tax benefit. If you're on your own, you have to buy health insurance
    with after-tax money. And as a result of this discrepancy in the Tax
    Code, it is much harder for an individualized market to take root in
    America. And therefore, Congress ought to level the playing field for
    every American family, and to make sure that private medicine is
    enhanced by fairness in the Tax Code.
        There are different opinions in Congress about which type of tax
    benefit would work the best: a tax deduction or a tax credit. Both of
    the proposals have their advantages, and either would be a lot better
    than federalizing health care in America.
        Taken together, the comprehensive set of reforms I just outlined
    would do far more to reduce the ranks of the uninsured than SCHIP
    expansion would. They'd make private insurance more affordable for
    millions of Americans. And Congress, rather than passing legislation
    that's not going to pass--not going to become law, ought to focus on
    practical, commonsense reforms.
        Especially a bad time for Congress to stage political theater on
    health care because it's got a lot of other work to do in other areas.
    We're now 10 full months into 2007, and the United States Congress has
    yet to pass a single one of the annual spending bills of the Federal
    Government. Considering how eager they are to spend your money, it's
    shocking it's taken so long to do so. In fact, the leaders on Capitol
    Hill now hold a dubious record as the first United States Congress in 20
    years that has failed to send a single annual appropriations bill to the
    President this late in the year. And time is running short. Members of
    Congress needs to pass these annual spending bills soon, one at a time.
        They should start by sending me a clean bill to fund our veterans by
    Veterans Day. I feel a special obligation to make sure that our veterans
    get the full support of the Federal Government. And Congress needs to
    stop wasting time and get that VA bill to my desk. We have got troops in
    harm's way. And regardless of your opinion--or Members of Congress's
    opinion on this war, they ought to put aside those opinions and focus on
    those troops and their families. Instead of playing politics on the
    floor of the House and the Senate, they need to pass the defense
    appropriations bill now to support the troops.
        This SCHIP debate is an important debate because it's going to send
    an important signal as these other appropriations bills move through
    Congress. If we overspend and raise taxes on this bill, it's going to
    create a bad habit for the Members of Congress. I think it's very
    important for people to understand that we can balance this budget and
    grow this economy if we're wise about how we spend your money, if we set
    priorities.
        It's also important for Members of Congress to understand, with
    Federal revenues at an alltime high and the deficit declining, now is
    not the time to raise taxes. Running up the taxes on the American people
    would be bad for our economy; more importantly, it would be bad for
    American families. I want you to have more money, so you can make the
    decisions for your families and yourself that you think are necessary. I
    like it when the after-tax revenues--income are up. I think it's good
    for America that American families are able to save for their children's
    education or small businesses have more money to invest. And the surest
    way

    [[Page 1405]]

    to dilute that spirit of entrepreneurship is to run your taxes up. And
    that's why I'm going to use my veto pen to prevent people from doing it.
        You know, we're living during challenging times. I view--but I view
    these as exciting times as well. I genuinely do. I think we're laying
    the foundation of peace for your children and grandchildren. I know it's
    necessary to do the hard work now so the first chapters of the 21st
    century will be positive chapters.
        I firmly believe that the spread of liberty is going to make it such
    that when people look back at this period of time, they say, thank God
    America had faith in certain values, certain fundamental truths. And one
    of those truths is that there is an Almighty, and a gift of that
    Almighty to every man, woman, and child is freedom. And another
    historical truth is, freedom yields the peace we want.
        And at home, freedom for people to invest and to make choices is
    important for a hopeful America. Government must trust the American
    people. We must trust the American people with your money; we must trust
    the American people as you make important decisions in health care; and
    we must trust the American people to continue to be the compassionate
    people that we are.
        It's an honor to represent you. May God bless you, and may God
    continue to bless our country.

    Note: The President spoke at 10:48 a.m. at the Renaissance Hotel. In his
    remarks, he referred to William B. Gyr, president and chief executive
    officer, Sunny Delight Beverages Company; and Cal Dooley, president and
    chief executive officer, Grocery Manufacturers Association/Food Products
    Association. He also referred to H.R. 976, H.R. 3678, and H.R. 3963.