[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.