Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order today.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor again today and appreciate the confidence of my leadership in allowing me to organize this hour and come chat a little bit with our Members here and to point out some interesting information in another edition of the Official Truth Squad. The Official Truth Squad is a group of individuals who try to come to the floor on this side of the aisle at least once a week in an effort to bring some truths and some facts to the items that we talk about on this floor. I know it won't surprise you, Mr. Speaker, but oftentimes some of the things we hear on this floor aren't necessarily the truth. So what we try to do is to point out items that are of importance in terms of information to the American people and how we on this floor ought to be making decisions on their behalf. And in so doing, we have a number of individuals we like to point to as kind of leaders in the public arena, both present and past, who have had as one of their hallmarks making certain that they discussed truth and made certain that they used facts in developing their positions. One of my favorite quotes comes from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former United States Senator from New York, and he had a quote that said: ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.'' I think that is incredibly important as we talk about this issue that we are discussing today, the economy and the budget and issues that relate to how Washington spends hard-earned taxpayer money. One of the most important facts is it is the taxpayers' money, it is not the government's. And there are many people who are here in Washington who believe that somehow, just by some miraculous nature, when the money is sent to Washington that somehow it becomes the government's money. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would hope you would agree with me that in fact it is the taxpayers' money and we need to spend it very, very wisely. One of the other relative issues that I think has seen a lot of naysayers and a lot of misinformation is the state of our economy right now. If you ask folks, most people across this Nation will say that their own economic situation is pretty good and they feel pretty good about the future. If you ask them how the economy in the Nation is going, the majority of them say that it is not going well at all. And that, I believe, to be in large part due to much of the messaging that comes out of Washington. Our good friends on the other side of the aisle have been down-talking this economy for years, literally years. So I was curious that over the weekend the Wall Street Journal had an editorial that they entitled: ``The Current `Depression,' '' and they used ``depression'' in quotes, because if you really look at the numbers, if you look at the facts, Mr. Speaker, they kind of belie the naysayers in what they have been saying: 110,000 new jobs in January, 41 straight months of job growth in this Nation. The average job growth in 2006 was 187,000 jobs; 2.2 million new jobs in 2006, and 7.4 million new jobs since 2003; 7.4 million new jobs since 2003. When you compare this expansion to the expansion that all sorts of folks talk about as being the be-all and the end-all, and that is with the expansion of the 1990s, when you compare this expansion, the expansion that we are currently in, the economic success that we are currently in is better when you look at many, many parameters. Unemployment, for example. The first six years of the 1990s, 1991 through 1996, had an average unemployment rate of 6.4 percent. The average unemployment rate for the first 6 years of this decade: 5.4 percent. And as you know, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment rate is at 4.6 percent. And the last time I looked, if the average unemployment rate is 4.6 percent, it means that 95.4 percent of folks are working. Real wage growth. Our friends on the other side of the aisle often talk about, well, this is a recovery, an economy that isn't resulting in real jobs; the wage growth isn't occurring, people's wages aren't increasing. Well, if you compare it to the vaunted years of the early 1990s, real wage growth for those first 6 years averaged 0.6 percent per year increase. 2001 through 2006, real wage growth in this Nation up 1.5 percent, and last year it was 1.7 percent increase. And that is accounting for inflation. It is accounting for inflation, Mr. Speaker. Now, one might want to ask, given the success of the current economy, how did that happen? What happened? How did that occur? How are we seeing the kind of results in the economy, the good news that we are currently seeing? And I am fond of using charts because I think that they paint a picture that is oftentimes, at least for me, easier to comprehend and easier to get my arms around. This is a chart that runs from 2000 through 2006, and we are going to update the numbers for this most recent quarter. But what it shows here on this vertical line, this dotted green vertical line is when we began this remarkable expansion. And what occurred on that at that point was, you guessed it, Mr. Speaker, appropriate tax reductions for the American people. So when you decrease taxes, what happens is that the blue line, you get more jobs; the red line, you get increasing business investment; and, lo and behold, something that President Kennedy knew and President Reagan knew, when you decrease taxes, which occurred at the nadir of this graph here, what happens is that you increase government revenue. It sounds counterintuitive, but in fact it isn't. If you decrease taxes, if you allow individuals to have more of their hard-earned money, what happens is that the economy grows and, because of that, tax revenue flows to the Federal Government. Now, an individual who is joining us today for this edition of the Official Truth Squad, an individual who is a new member of our conference from California who knows a lot about taxes and a lot about the issue of taxes and how they affect us on a daily basis, I am pleased to ask my friend Kevin McCarthy from California to join us and give us some insight into exactly where those taxes come from and how often we are taxed. I think that is the kind of truth and facts you would like to bring to us today.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for coming and joining us today and helping out and bringing truth and facts to the issue of the economy and especially taxation, because oftentimes people don't think about the times that they do indeed pay tax. I try to visit as many schools as I can in my district back in Georgia, and when I am in front of student groups, I oftentimes ask them, Do you pay any tax? And of course most often they say, Oh, no. We don't pay any tax. Our parents pay some tax, but we don't pay any tax. Then you ask them, Did you buy a pack of gum? Paid for any of your shoes lately? Have you bought any food? Anything that you buy, anything that you buy has taxes on it. So any consumable product whatsoever has taxes on it. So everybody contributes into it. And when individuals are able to keep more of their own money, what happens is that the economy is able to flourish to a much greater degree. So I appreciate the information that you brought about taxes. I also want to point out that you mentioned that our good friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be moving in the direction of allowing the appropriate tax reductions that resulted in this success, to allow those tax reductions to go away, which means a tax increase for the vast majority of Americans all across this Nation. And if they do what they have basically said they are planning on doing, and that is allow those tax reductions to expire, allow taxes to go up, the marginal tax rate, that is the rate, the percentage of income that each and every American pays to government to run the services, will be over 50 percent for the first time since the late 1970s. And, Mr. Speaker, some of our Members may not remember the late 1970s, but I remember it and I know that my good friends here remember it, and that is that we had something called the misery index. It was the last time that inflation and unemployment were just skyrocketing, both of them because of poor programs of the Federal Government. So I fear that what will happen if our good friends on the other side of the aisle get their way is that we will revisit the misery index. So we are here to try to bring truth and fact and light to the issue of the economy and taxation and the budget. I am so pleased to be joined by my good friend from Tennessee, the congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, who understands business, understands the economy and budgetary issues as well or better than the vast majority of folks in this Chamber. I look forward to your comments today as we talk about budget, economy and taxes.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and for again pointing out how important it is to have our budget here at the Federal level compare or track what we do at home. In fact, what we do at the State level, virtually every single State has a balanced budget because they cannot do what Washington does, and that is print money. Having served in the State legislature, we would spend days and weeks and months sometimes dealing with the hard-earned taxpayer money, again not government money, but hard-earned taxpayer money and make certain that our budget was balanced at the State level. In fact, in Washington I am distressed that is not exactly what occurs. I am a strong supporter of a balanced budget, and what you will see on some of the charts and information that we currently have is that the tax policies that have been put in place and the program changes that have been put in place, something that is not well-known, is that the nondefense discretionary money, which is about 16 to 17 percent of our overall budget right now, has been actually decreasing as it relates to inflation. So Congress has been trying diligently to try to make certain that it reins in costs and spending. Because, Lord knows, we have not got a revenue problem; we have got a spending problem. If you track out the budget itself, and this is with Congressional Budget Office numbers, they are not the kind of numbers that I think demonstrate the upside that we receive from tax reductions, but, in any event, what they do show is that at about 2011 the budget is balanced. The budget is balanced, and that is if we keep our current programs in place. Now, we can get to that point a lot sooner if we get more responsible on the spending side. Now, my good friends on the other side of the aisle will tell you, well, we are going to balance the budget, too, and they can do that if they just left things alone. We would get to a balanced budget. But what they will tell you is we need to spend more in other areas, and so we need to tax Americans more. We are going to balance the budget, yes, but we are going to do it by taxing the American people more, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the way in which we need to move forward. We will talk about some other revenue items and some other aspects of a balanced budget, but I want to address what has been termed by many myths, 10, 12 number of myths about President Bush's tax reductions. These are the tax reductions, appropriate tax reductions, that our friends on the other side of the aisle say they have to end. They have to increase taxes on the American people. The Democrat majority has to write a budget. They have to write a budget. Each year, the majority party has to write a budget, and the House has to pass a budget. The new majority, the Democrat majority, has three options in that budget as to how they are going to deal with these appropriate tax reductions that were put in place earlier in this decade. They can extend them. They can continue the appropriate tax reductions, something that I and the vast majority of folks on our side of the aisle believe ought to occur. They could allow them to expire. Virtually all of them are slated to expire in 2011. So, if no action is taken, then the other side will, in fact, increase taxes, or they can repeal them. They could increase taxes right way. So they have the responsibility of determining exactly what they are going to do with those appropriate tax reductions. There are a number of myths that have grown up around these tax reductions that I would like to highlight. One is that the tax reductions themselves or the tax revenues themselves remain low. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as I have on a previous chart shown, the tax revenues are above the historical average, even after these appropriate tax reductions. Tax reductions in 2006 were about 18.4 percent of the gross domestic product, which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year and 60-year historical averages. Now the inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest 2-year surge in tax revenue since 1965 and 1967. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The revenue to the Federal Government increased 20 percent over a 2-year period between 2004 and 2006, which is the largest increase in revenue to the Federal Government since 1965 and 1967. So claims that Americans and the American people are undertaxed according to history are simply patently false, absolutely untrue, and so it is important to remember that tax revenues are up because of a decrease in taxes, decrease in liability to the American people. When you compare the tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after each of the past recessions, it shows that the tax revenues were basically the same. So, in 1987, tax revenues were about 1.4 percent of gross domestic product; 1995, 18.5 percent; and 2006, 18.4 percent. All of that is to say, Mr. Speaker, that when you decrease taxes, the revenue that comes into the Federal Government stays about the same as a percentage of the overall economy, but you decrease the number for each and every American because the economy is increasing and the revenue increases to the Federal Government. So tax reductions are good for the government. Tax reductions are good for the American people. The second myth that I want to talk about and discuss as it relates to the appropriate tax reductions that were adopted by this Congress back in 2001 and in 2003, the myth that is out there is that these tax reductions substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit. Well, the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline. I am the first to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government, Washington, has been spending too much money, too much of hard-earned taxpayer money. That being said, I think it is important that our friends on the other side of the aisle, who say that they want to balance the budget, do so by doing the responsible thing and that is decreasing spending and not increasing taxes. In the first place, if you increase taxes, what you do is, over the long term, you get less revenue to the Federal Government, but in terms of budget deficit, what you see is that you will decrease the deficit more rapidly by decreasing taxes and by decreasing spending. Now critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998 through 2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from what they call ``irresponsible'' tax reductions. This argument, however, ignores the historic spending increases that pushed Federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent of spending in 2006. Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected. We have talked about that before. They were above the levels that were projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Now, immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the 2006 budget deficit would be $57 billion. Yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. Now, the $190 billion deficit increase resulted from Federal spending, resulted from Federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. So revenues were actually $47 billion above projections even after the $75 billion in tax cuts that the other side says hurt, hurt the bottom line and hurt the deficits. So these myths, I think, are important to correct to point out the factual nature of what is going on as opposed to just flying by the seat of your pants, which is not the way folks do their family budget and certainly ought not to be the way that we do our Federal budget. The next myth I want to talk about is the capital gains taxes; tax cuts do not pay for themselves. There is kind of this sense that folks say, well, if you keep capital gains low, those are the taxes that people pay on the profits that they made on investments. I am in favor of doing away with them all together. But if you keep them low, what happens is you don't get the same amount of revenue into the Federal Government. Well, the fact of the matter is that capital gains tax revenues doubled, doubled following the 2003 tax cut. Did you hear that? Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut. Now, whether a tax cut pays for itself depends on how much people alter their behavior in response to that policy. Investors have shown to be the most sensitive to tax policy because capital gains tax cuts encourage new investment to more than offset the lower tax rate. This chart here is a demonstration of exactly that. What we see here is a chart that shows capital gains tax revenues that doubled following the 2003 tax cut. The yellow line here projected from 2003 through 2006, the yellow line demonstrates what the Congressional Budget Office said would be the taxes gained from capital gains tax revenue. The blue line which you see is significantly higher than that are the actual revenues that came into the Federal Government following the 2003 capital gains tax reduction. So in 2003 capitalize gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent to 10 percent, depending on income, to 15 percent and 5 percent. Now, rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006, as the CBO projected, capitalize gains revenue more than doubled $103 billion, $103 billion, more than twice what was projected. Past capital gains cuts have shown similar results as well. The fact of the matter is, remember, you can have your own opinions as you walk through this discussion of the economy and of tax policy and of budget policy, but it is important that we look at facts so that we are making appropriate decisions here on behalf of the American people. The fact of the matter is that when you decrease capital gains taxes you increase investment in America and you increase the revenue to the Federal Government, which is demonstrated clearly by this chart that we see right here. Another myth that I want to talk about is the myth that says that the tax deductions are to blame for the long-term budget deficits. In fact, that isn't true at all. Projections show that entitlement or automatic spending, automatic costs, will dwarf the projected large revenue increases of the current tax reductions. As you remember, the graph that I had up here had revenue to the Federal Government increasing because of the appropriate reductions in taxes to the American people. However, those increases will all be eaten up by automatic spending that occurs here in Washington. Some folks call these programs entitlement programs. They are primarily Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. These are the automatic programs where the spending continues to increase based upon a formula. I have a chart that I would like to share with you that demonstrates clearly the challenge and the problem that confront not just those of us representing Americans but all of America. These are three pie charts that demonstrate the mandatory or automatic spending that occurs, primarily again in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is 1995. Those programs comprised approximately half of the Federal budget, 48.7 percent of the Federal budget. Now, the percent of the Federal budget that was utilized at that time for interest on the debt was 15.3 percent, a point much greater than current, and then discretionary spending where we have all of the Federal programs that people think about in terms of transportation, national park programs, all of those kinds of things, in addition to defense, that portion, in 1995, was 36 percent. Again, about 48.7 percent was the mandatory portion of the budget. In 2005, just 2 years ago, that portion had grown from 48.7 percent to 53.4 percent. Again, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, there were automatic spending increases over a period of time with those three specific programs. If you track out to 2016, you get to 63.9 percent of the Federal budget. So those are the automatic programs that are in place, the automatic spending programs that are in place. This is clearly, clearly unsustainable. Spending of the entire GDP has kind of hovered around 20 percent for the past half century. However, with the retirement of the baby boomers, this is the first year that baby boomers will begin to receive Social Security. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will see significant increases in the amount of revenue projected to increase over 10.5 percent over the next 10 years. What you see is an increase to 63.9 percent by 2016. Clearly, clearly, these French-style spending increases, not tax policy, are the problem. In Washington, lawmakers, all of us, all of us have a responsibility and should focus on getting these entitlements under control, as opposed to raising taxes on the American people. That not only will not work, they may be good bumper sticker politics, but they will not work to solve the problem. This is hard work, significant challenges that confront all of us. Next myth I would like to address very briefly is that raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue. There is kind of this general belief on the other side of the aisle that all you have to do to get more money is to raise more taxes. As you know, tax revenues themselves correlate with economic growth, not with tax rates, so that as the government increases its revenue as the economy grows, many of those who desire additional tax revenues regularly call on Congress to raise taxes. But tax revenues are a function basically of two variables. One is tax rates and two is the tax base. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent, dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent. At the same time, tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining basically a constant percent of GDP. They are basically a perfect correlation between those two. I think it is exceedingly important for all of us here and the American people to realize and appreciate that raising taxes doesn't raise tax revenue. In fact, as we saw from the previous charts, it is decreasing taxes that increase tax revenue. One other myth that I would like to talk about very briefly is that there is this myth that reversing the upper income tax reductions, the upper income tax cuts, would raise substantial revenues. In fact, the lower income tax cuts reduced tax revenue more than the high income tax reductions. I have a chart that will show that as well. This chart oftentimes comes as a real eye opener for the American people and for so many of my colleagues here, as a matter of fact. This chart shows the share of individual income taxes that are paid by different portions of our society, and I would like to just point to the last two bars, the last two bar graphs down there. This one, the larger one, that demonstrates that over 96 percent of all tax revenue comes from folks in the upper half of the income bracket of this Nation, and that the bottom 50 percent, the lower 50 percent pay less than 4 percent of the tax revenue that comes into the United States. Now, that is important because if you try to concentrate on just the middle-income folks, in fact, you will not generate the kind of money that you are talking about or that you need, and you also will significantly depress the economy. Again, it is important to talk about facts. It is important to talk about truth as we talk about making certain that we have the right policy here at the Federal Government. Finally, there is a myth out there that these reductions, tax reductions, haven't helped the economy. In fact, the economy has responded to the 2003 tax reductions in remarkable ways, as we have already pointed out. GDP grew at an annual rate of 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the tax reductions. The six quarters that followed the tax reductions, it grew at 4.1 percent; 1.7 percent before, 4.1 percent afterward. It is a fact. Nonresidential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax reductions. Since then, it has expanded for 14 consecutive quarters. Down 13 quarters before, up 14 quarters afterward. It is a fact, not an opinion. Standard & Poor's 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. After, increased 32 percent over the next six quarters; before, down 18 percent; after, up 32 percent. That is a fact, not an opinion. The economy, six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts lost 267,000 jobs. In the six quarters after, increased 307,000 jobs, and, as you well know, since then we have burgeoned by having 7.3 million new jobs since the middle of 2003. What we have tried to do today is try to bring to the American people some truth, some facts as we talk about the budget that will have to be laid out here over the next month to 6 weeks, pointing out the remarkable fallacy of so many of the arguments that are used on the floor of this House to say that, well, we have just got to raise taxes. You have heard some of the Presidential candidates out there on the stump, saying, we have just got to raise taxes. In fact, some of my good friends on the other side of the aisle say just that, nothing we can do except raise taxes. You know and I know that the truth of the matter is that when you look at how the economy operates, how the Federal Government gains revenue, that, in fact, decreasing taxes, maintaining the appropriate tax reductions, allowing the American people to keep more of their hard-earned money is exactly what is the prescription that is necessary for America and for the economy to continue to flourish. So I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I look forward to a spirited debate. I think the question really is, when you get right down to it, the question becomes who ought to decide; who should decide how the American people spend their hard- earned money. Should it be the government? Should it be more government programs? Regardless of whatever area of the society you want to talk about, is it the Federal Government and State governments that ought to be making those decisions? Or should it be, as I and so many of my friends on this side of the aisle believe, that those decisions are better left to individual Americans? They make better decisions about what to do with their hard- earned money when they are allowed to keep their hard-earned money and not have it rolled into the Federal Government as tax revenue. I am pleased to be able to provide hopefully a bit of light, a bit of truth, a bit of fact for this Chamber, and deal with the issues that are coming before us over the next 4 to 6 weeks. I look forward to this discussion on this debate.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in his novel, 1984, George Orwell presents this concept of doublethink, which is defined as, ``The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously and accepting both of them.'' I come to the floor today, Mr. Speaker, to review the repetitive lack of openness and accountability that we have seen on this House floor over the last month. Time and again, this new majority has governed on the premise that if you simply just say it, it will become true. It is Orwellian doublethink, an amazing concept. They believe that if you simply just say you are lowering drug prices, poof, it's done, ignoring the reality that prices really won't be lowered and fewer drugs will be made available to our seniors. They believe that if you just say you are implementing all of the 9/ 11 Commission's recommendations, it changes the fact that the bill that was passed here on the floor doesn't reflect the totality of those recommendations. They believe that if you just say you are cutting interest rates in half for college students, it doesn't matter that in reality you've pulled a bait-and-switch, with the rate cut lasting just 6 months. Mr. Speaker, saying it doesn't make it so. And Democratic doublethink does a disservice to this Nation. Now this makes for great talking points and great press releases, but yields very little for the people back home. Rather than bold policy initiatives, people are starting to realize that the Democratic agenda has been more pop than fizz. And now, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are using this Orwellian newspeak, doublethink, in regard to spending Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. On December 11 of last year, 2006, the two chairmen of the Appropriations Committee in the House and Senate, Obey and Byrd, said, and I quote, ``There will be no congressional earmarks in the joint funding resolution that we will pass.'' No earmarks. But sadly, once again, the facts just don't match the promises. Democratic doublethink is alive and well. The majority used a loophole in the House rules to include millions of dollars of earmarks by simply saying that there were none. Clause 9 of rule XXI of the House rules says that it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution unless the chairman of each committee of initial referral has a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks. So the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, conveniently submitted to the record on January 29 that prior to the omnibus bill being considered, quote, ``does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.'' But, in fact, Mr. Speaker, this omnibus spending bill that the Democrats passed last week contained hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks. Democrat doublethink. If we follow this Democrat policy as long as you submit to the record that there are no earmarks, you can feel free to just load up any appropriations bill with as many earmarks as you like with absolutely no accountability. Their actions completely violate the spirit of our earmarking rule, designed to bring greater transparency to our spending process. Rather than take the new rule seriously, the Democrat majority has used this sly interpretation that essentially allows for unlimited earmarks. In this new Democrat majority, if you just close your eyes and say there are no earmarks, miraculously millions of dollars of earmarks are wasted on things like rain forests in Iowa. This isn't the type of open and honest government that our constituents expected in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, this doublethink is unacceptable to the American people, who work hard every day to provide for their families only to have Washington throw away their money, unsupervised, on pork projects. There was a positive and honest and principled alternative to this spending injustice. Republicans offered an alternative eliminating these earmarks and targeting funds for military housing and drug enforcement. Our friends on the other side of the aisle chose to ignore it and throw money at their pet earmark projects. For 12 years our colleagues on the other side blamed Republicans for every ill under the sun, and now that it is their time to govern, they hide behind bumper sticker and press release politics. Never before has such an enormous amount of taxpayer money been spent so quickly, over $400 billion in one hour. If our friends on the other side of the aisle truly desired to clean up earmarks and bring greater transparency to our spending, why would they then make this their first act? Their actions simply don't match their rhetoric. The American people expect more than a wink and a nod that they have gotten so far from this Democrat majority. Democrat doublethink does a disservice to our Nation. In George Orwell's 1984 Doublethink Newspeak, he said that the lie always was one step ahead of the truth; but the American people are catching up, Mr. Speaker. Just saying something doesn't make it so.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Those are facts. Mr. Speaker, I would ask to insert in the Record the letter from Lieutenant General Melcher. Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Washington, DC, January 31, 2007. Hon. Duncan Hunter, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Hunter: Sir, you recently requested a quick summary of Base Realignment and Closure impacts to the Army as proposed in the Joint Resolution H.J. Res. 20. The attached information accurately portrays these impacts. The following identifies key Army concerns: Army will not begin with approximately $2.0 B of our BRAC program which is a key enabler to grow and position the Army; this leaves more than half of our FY07 BRAC program (56%) unexecutable Operational impact on the Training, Mobilization, and Deployment of Forces in support of the Global War on Terrorism Unravels the Army's synchronized stationing and BRAC plan-- puts growth of the Army, stationing, and BRAC at risk . Delays transformation of Reserve Component--has operational consequences Breaks the Nation's obligation to provide Soldiers and Families adequate quality of life--affects the All Volunteer Force Delays capital investment and inhibits economic development--affects local jobs and growth across the U.S. (over 80,000 jobs) Limits predictability and military construction acquisition efficiencies--results in higher construction costs I trust this information is helpful. Sincerely, David F. Melcher, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Military Deputy for Budget, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and Comptroller.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Please.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. And that things were skipped over quickly. They were. We had 1 hour of debate on a $463 billion appropriations bill. Phenomenal. Phenomenal when you think about it.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for his insight. Nobody knows more about these issues than you and I. I appreciate you bringing that perspective. You mention a number of items. You said there was barely a mention about this. I was listening pretty closely. I didn't hear a single word about it from the other side that talked about the cuts that are in place.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you so much. I appreciate your perspective and your insight and your wonderful words about accountability, because that is really what it is all about, Mr. Speaker. It is about accountability. It is about holding people here in this House accountable for what they said they were going to do. Elections are wonderful things. Every 2 years, the American people get to go to the polls and they get to say we like how things are going and we want to support that or we think there ought to be a change. In November of last year, the American people voted for change, but I do not believe, as I know my good friend from Tennessee does not believe, that the American people voted for higher spending or greater deficits, which is what the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives today adopted. I do know also that they did not vote to decrease money for our armed services, for our military men and women who are working as hard as they can, day and night, to make certain they keep us safe. In fact, what they have done indeed with this bill that was adopted today is to decrease the amount of revenue available for our fighting men and women and especially the base realignment and closure which is what gives the efficiency to the system. Nobody knows about that better than the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee than my good friend from California, the honorable Duncan Hunter, and I appreciate so much his taking part in this hour this evening. I look forward to your comments.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am so honored and pleased to be able to come to the House floor once again with another version, another edition of what we call the Official Truth Squad. The role of the Official Truth Squad is to attempt to try to bring some honesty and factual information to the floor of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, oftentimes that is difficult to find. Today was no exception on the floor of the House as we tried to, through the debate we had, make sure that facts were being presented and information was reliable upon which people make their decisions was being presented. I am honored by the leadership on the Republican side of the aisle to come to the floor tonight and share with the American people and talk about issues that are of great concern, some of which have been dealt with as recently as today. On the Official Truth Squad, we have a favorite quote which comes from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was a United States Senator from New York. He said, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.'' Mr. Speaker, no place could that ring more true than right here in the halls of Congress. We get a lot of opportunity to observe process here. We talk about process a lot. We talk about rules a lot. Many people say, what difference does that make? What difference do the rules make? And a lot of people, many people, say, on my side, say you don't want to talk about process. It is difficult for the American people to understand or appreciate. But what process does in a democratic institution, and this being the finest democratic institution in the world, the people's House, what process does is allow all voices to be heard and allow all points of view to be heard. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if you think about it and if my friends on both sides of the aisle would think about it, we all appreciate that we don't have Republican challenges or Republican problems or Democrat problems or Democrat challenges. We have American challenges, American challenges that are best solved when we all work together and come up with the best and most correct solution for our Nation. But, sadly, Mr. Speaker, we haven't had much of that with this new Congress. That is, the opportunity to have input into the process. Again, the reason that the process is so important, because if you lock people out of the ability to have input into the process, then what happens, the individuals, the citizens, the American citizens that those people represent, those people who are locked out of the process, those American citizens are without a voice. They don't have a voice in the process. Mr. Speaker, I think that is not only unfair, it is undemocratic, and so I would respectfully suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle that they ought to look at the rules that they have adopted and they ought to look at the process that they have gone through for these first 3 or 4 weeks that we have been in Congress and try to be true to their principles, or their stated principles, and make certain that all folks are able to be involved in the process. Because it makes a difference. It does indeed make a difference. Today, we took up on the floor of the House what was called a continuing resolution. It was, in fact, an omnibus bill. It was a spending bill. The last Congress, the one that was in place prior to the beginning of this month, the House did its job from a financial standpoint relatively efficiently. We passed all of our spending bills, appropriations bills, to try to figure out how to spend the hard-earned money from the taxpayer. We got our business done pretty quickly. The bills that we sent over to the Senate sat there and sat there and sat there. Consequently, what happened was we came to the end of 2006 and there was no agreement between the Senate and the House about those appropriations bills. So what we passed was a continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, the continuing resolution that we passed, which was truly a continuing resolution, which just meant that you continued to spend the same amount of money in the programs that were in place in the Federal Government; and to do that it doesn't take much language. In fact, the bill was two short pages. If you had a little larger page, it would be one page. Because all it says in legal terms is we will continue to spend the amount of money that we spent last year. That bill runs the government spending through February 15. So something else had to be done; and the other side said, we will do a continuing resolution. We will continue spending money at the same rate on the same programs because their committees haven't got up and running. They cannot figure out exactly what the process ought to be to allow people to have input into it, so we will just have a continuing resolution. So they presented their, quote, continuing resolution. Well, Mr. Speaker, that continuing resolution I have here, this H.J. Res, is 137 pages long. Mr. Speaker, that is a fact. It is not an opinion, that is a fact. Now the continuing resolution that could continue the spending for our Nation, responsible spending at the lowest possible level given the amount of spending that has occurred over the past number of months of this fiscal year, could just be continued with a two-page resolution that says, yes, indeed, we will continue that spending. In fact, what the majority party has done is passed a 137-page omnibus bill. It is not a continuing resolution in spite of what they say. The reason that is important is the process was not in place to allow input by almost anybody. Not just Republicans, but Democrats as well, and certainly freshmen Democrats, had no input into the process. What is in this bill is all sorts of special spending, picking winners and losers and rewarding friends in this bill that the other side, the Democrat majority side, says is just a continuing resolution. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have some principles on our side, and one of them is that no process deserves more public scrutiny than the way in which the hard-earned taxpayer money is spent. No process deserves more scrutiny than the way in which hard-earned taxpayer money is spent. In fact, what happened today is the spending or the concurrence by the House of Representatives, the vast majority of them being Democrat, that we would spend $463 billion, that is with a ``B'', Mr. Speaker, $463 billion on the omnibus bill that they have presented. And there are so many things that we would like to talk about tonight that relate to process and to policy, and I am pleased to be joined by good friends who will highlight some of those items. A member of the Official Truth Squad, a Member who brings highlight and honesty to our deliberations joins me this evening, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn). I appreciate your being with us, and I look forward to your comments.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida. I appreciate so much his emotion and his passion and his perspective. As you are living through these times, it is oftentimes difficult to get people to pay attention to what truly are historic occurrences, and I share with you that disappointment and sadness. I truly do. Having served in a legislative body at the State level and seeing how bipartisanship can work and seeing how democracy truly is supposed to work, this has been a disappointing month. It has been a disappointing month, because most of what you can talk about in terms of getting your arms around where the problem is is process. I talked about that at the beginning of this hour, Mr. Speaker, and I mention that the reason that process is so important is because that is what enables the minority to have participation. But not just the minority. It enables every single Member of this House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, every single Member represents approximately the same number of people. We go to great pains to make certain that districts are basically of equal size every 10 years through the census process and through redistricting; and we do that because each individual in this body, each Member of this body, represents basically the same number of people and therefore should have essentially the same say in the process and in the deliberation. Some folks have called this month the death of deliberation, and that truly has been. That is disappointing. That is very saddening for all of us whose constituents, whose American citizen constituents who go to the polls and vote, do indeed express their will to us. If we are unable to express their will through this process here, then they are muted, they are silenced, they are disenfranchised; and that, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest is an unfair process, is a wrong process and is an undemocratic process. It doesn't have to be that way. So I encourage my good friends on the other side of the aisle, and I know some of them are feeling pained by some of the decisions that their leadership has made over this past month, and I encourage them to continue to work for a process that will allow for the inclusion of all. Because, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, we do not have Republican challenges or Democrat challenges, we have American challenges. The American people send us here to take care of those challenges and put forward the best solutions, and the best solutions come when all of us are involved in that process. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in a very positive way as we move forward and do what is best and what is right on behalf of the American people. I want to thank my leadership once again for the opportunity to spend this hour on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you ever so much, Congresswoman Drake. We appreciate your heartfelt words and the message from your constituent and that perspective on what truly is a portion of this global war on terror. The incredible importance of making certain that we as a Congress and we as a people support our men and women at every turn. So I thank you very, very much. And that highlights what happened today on this floor about the appropriations bill, the omnibus bill, that the other side of the aisle, the Democrat majority, passed. And, in fact, what they have done is made it more difficult for our military to function. We have heard a letter from a lieutenant general in the Army about that. We heard from our own administration about that, about how it makes it more difficult. And we heard from our good friend from Texas about the Olympics award that the Democrats won today by spending more money in 1 hour than any Congress in the history of the Nation. And, again, it would be humorous if it weren't so serious, Mr. Speaker. It would be humorous if it weren't so serious. And I am so pleased to be joined by a good friend from Florida, Congressman Mica, who has some interesting perspective on what went on here today on the floor of the House. I appreciate your coming and bringing some accountability to what occurred today.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas so much for his wonderful cogent comments. And talking about the individuals on the other side of the aisle, who have indeed said one thing and then come here and done another, one would think that they are beginning to foster a culture of hypocrisy. That kind of has a little ring to it that rings true on the other side of the aisle. I do want to thank you as well for your comments about tax revenue. Sometimes a picture tells a better story than words, although your words were cogent and so appropriate. But this graph helps me understand the benefits of tax decreases, Mr. Speaker. When you decrease taxes, which is what we did here in Congress in 2001 and 2003, this line here is revenue to the Federal Government and what happened was that the revenue was going down, but we decreased taxes appropriately, as the gentleman from Texas said, and what happens is that the revenue goes up. The Federal Government, in fact, gets more revenue because there is more economic activity, more economic vitality. We have touched on so many things tonight. My good friend from Virginia has joined us. We are running a little short on time, but I do want to make certain that you get an opportunity to join us for the Official Truth Squad and make some comments possibly about BRAC. My good friend from Virginia, Thelma Drake, is just so wonderfully active here in Congress and so cogent and appropriate on issues of the military, representing the military installations in southeast Virginia. So I welcome you and look forward to your comments.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I also want to highlight a statement in a letter from the Office of Management and Budget from the Executive Office of the President about these BRAC closings, because I think that it highlights one of the very egregious activities that occurred in passing this omnibus, this appropriations bill, that the Democrat majority did today. It says, quote, the President's budget requested $5.6 billion to implement the recommendations of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission. That is something that all of us had voted on here on the floor of the House. The administration strongly opposes the committee's reduction of $3.1 billion from the President's request. Remember, this is $3.1 billion cut out of a $5.6 billion appropriation. This will, quote, significantly delay BRAC implementation, increase the risk that the Department of Defense would not meet its statutory deadline to implement BRAC, reduce BRAC savings, delay or postpone scheduled redeployments of military personnel. Did you hear that? Delay or postpone scheduled redeployments of military personnel and their overseas stations to the United States and negatively impact many specific plans in response to BRAC. So, in addition to the challenges and the difficulties that we have in trying to make certain that our men and women have anything at their resource to be able to fight this global war on terror, I doubt that anybody on the other side of the aisle, when they ran for office last November, said, boy, I sure want to cut the military's budget as they fight the global war on terror. I doubt that happened, but, in fact, that is exactly what happened on the floor of the House today. What we are here to do today, as The Official Truth Squad, is to make certain that we hold people accountable. There are people watching. There are people listening. The American people know that there are two different philosophies of how government ought to work. We have a philosophy that it ought to be efficient, that it ought to be as small as possible, that it ought to respect individuals, that it ought to strongly support the global war on terror in our military. Our good friends on the other side of the aisle oftentimes talk like that. But when it gets right down to votes, that is not how they vote. We are here today to bring some facts to the issue and some accountability. I am so pleased to be joined by my good friend from Texas, who was past budget chairman for the Republican Study Committee during the last term and this year has assumed the helm of the Chair of the Republican Study Committee, I think one of the finest groups of individuals in this Congress, the individuals who are as concerned as anybody that I know about economic responsibility, financial responsibility, and accountability for this Congress. I thank you for joining us this evening and look forward to your comments.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I ask for a division on that vote, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand the question of consideration.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today, I proudly rise to honor and congratulate some spectacular student athletes from Georgia's Sixth District. This past month one of our hometown high schools brought home the State football championship. After an inspired season that united our community, Roswell High School awed all of Georgia with their first State football title in 36 years; and because of the passion and commitment and intensity shown by the players, coaches, classmates and the community alike, this season will forever be marked in history. The Roswell Hornets won the 5A State championship in what was an extraordinary example of both skill and athleticism. These talented young men showed what is possible with hard work and unyielding determination. These student athletes will always cherish the memory of this season. The players, their families and their classmates who cheered them on will always look back to the 2006 season as a source of pride, accomplishment and satisfaction. Roswell High School learned more than how to win a championship this last year. They learned what happens when everyone comes together in pursuit of a dream. I know that the House of Representatives joins me in congratulating Roswell High School from Roswell, Georgia.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding on this extremely important issue. I, too, rise with great respect for the individuals who are Delegates and our Resident Commissioner. I also want to make it certain that I state up front that we commend all of the men and women who fight our battle in this war on terror with the recognition and appreciation that those men and women serve in a voluntary capacity, and our hearts and prayers go out to them and their families. I do want to say, however, Mr. Speaker, that this process is a remarkable abuse of power. I oppose the rule and the underlying bill on the basis of both process and policy, which I believe to be flawed, and also because it is remarkably unconstitutional. I am oftentimes reminded of the Lewis Carroll book, and sometimes I feel that way: Just because you say it is so doesn't make it so. Individuals who promote what we are doing right now believe, in fact, that they can just make up rules at a whim. In fact, we are tied by the ultimate document of our Nation, and that is the United States Constitution. It makes it very clear in that Constitution, Article I, section 2, that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States. It doesn't say territories, it doesn't say the Delegates of the territories, it doesn't say Resident Commissioner. I might, indeed, support a move for statehood for any of those entities. However, this is an unconscionable action. This is a violation of the public trust, and it is a clear abuse of power. Under this strategy, under this Democrat plot, the majority party could seat anybody, anybody, in the House. Who is next? Who would you like to seat next? Howard Dean? He has a significant constituency. Why not have Howard Dean have a seat in the United States House of Representatives and a vote in the Committee of the Whole? Mr. Speaker, the American people are disgusted with this level of arrogance and the abuse of power that this demonstrates. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and to defeat the underlying bill. We will ultimately see the final defeat of this in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I just wanted to appreciate the gentleman for placing items in the Record. I would point out that the majority leader has stated that the Republicans have described this as a power grab. In fact, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, and USA Today describe it as a power grab. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. If the gentlewoman would yield, I appreciate that description of a free market private system health care. I call it patient centered when I am talking about private because it means that patients are empowered to do what they feel is appropriate in their instance. When you have a medical problem or when somebody else has a medical problem, their decision about what they want to do to treat that may not be what mine would be or my family's would be. It is only when individuals get to make those personal decisions that we are able to make certain that patient-centered health care exists. When we try to describe what the future may be if our friends on the other side of the aisle had their way and put in place a government system that they tried to do in the early 1990s, all you have to do is think about the last time you were at your doctor's and you needed a test or an X-ray or some type of procedure done. Well, it is very likely that discussion and education that you got as a patient with your physician didn't last terribly long and you came to an understanding and agreement about what would happen next. What you may not have known what happens next is one of those employees in that office then gets on the phone and talks to the insurance company to make certain that it is okay. Most often we have gotten that process down to be relatively streamlined. But can you imagine if we put the government in charge of health care and you had to get on the phone and get the government's permission, Washington's permission, so you could have an MRI or biopsy or some other procedure? That is what is looming. The problem is now just time and inconvenience. The problem is that if you, in order to have that happen and to be effective from the government, from Washington's viewpoint, if you were not to follow those rules, there would be significant punishment. In fact, you would violate the law. So what we saw in the early 1990s in the proposal that was put on the table, if you as a patient or a physician were to do something that wasn't allowed by the government, that would be a crime. It wouldn't just be a bad decision; it would be a crime. So what our friends on the other side of the aisle are in fact proposing in the small print, and I know they like bumper-sticker politics, I know they like to give these glorious titles to things, and they sound wonderful, but when you get down to the fine print, what you see, especially in the area of health care that I feel so passionately about, when you get down to the fine print, what it means is that patients and doctors will be exposed to criminal violations if they don't follow what Washington says they ought to do. That concerns me very, very greatly; and I know it does you. I yield back.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Sometimes it is hard to get your arms around what do you mean the government being involved in the process. I would suggest to my colleagues here and others who are listening that we already see the inroads of some government decisions. One of them is what sounded wonderful at the time, the HIPAA legislation, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which was supposed to make every individual citizen in this Nation make their health records more secure and private. In fact, what that bill has done is make that information less private and more available to more individuals than ever before. That is because, as you well know when you go in to see your doctor, the first thing you have to do is sign a ream of documents. You feel like you are in a lawyer's office. You sign a ream of documents. What you are doing when you sign those documents is providing so that the physician, when he or she shares your medical information with anybody, isn't liable for violating HIPAA. Medicine is a collegial activity. It requires that Dr. A communicate with Dr. B who communicates with Dr. C, and they get together and come up with the best solution for anybody's health problem. When you are not able to share that information, the quality of health care goes down. What has happened because the government had this brilliant idea to get involved in the process is to say we will make it so that your information cannot be shared with anybody unless you give your permission. So because Dr. Smith doesn't know when he or she is going to run into Dr. Jones to discuss that case, it is imperative that every single patient sign away their right to any privacy so the doctor can communicate when that time arises. What the government has done by putting these rules in place, which sounded wonderful, but what the government has done is made it so every single patient in this Nation, their medical information is less private and less secure than it was before governmental intervention.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you so much for yielding. And I appreciate your bringing up that point because it is so important and really so basic to our Nation. Our Nation began for a variety of reasons, but not the least of which is that our Founding Fathers believed that they were being taxed without any ability to have representation in the body that was deciding whether or not to tax them. They had taxation without representation. Well, this is really turning it on its head because, as you mentioned, the individuals, the people in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, wonderful people that they are, but they are not obligated to pay any Federal income tax. None. So what we would be doing would be allowing Members, individuals in this House of Representatives who would be described as Members, to vote on whether or not to raise income taxes, but not be affected personally and not have the people that they represent be affected. So that would be representation without taxation. And I simply believe and I think that our constituents believe across this Nation that that is fundamentally wrong. Fundamentally wrong. And I want to get back for just a moment to the issue of one person/ one vote, because when people say, well, it does not make a whole lot of difference if the districts are a little bit different size. What difference does that make? But, again, our Founders knew and understood wisely that every Member of this House of Representatives ought to represent essentially the same number of people so that when individuals at home, citizens at home, vote for their representative, their vote counts basically the same as every other citizen of this Nation. And when you have districts that are one-tenth the size of other districts, which, as you mentioned, American Samoa has a population of about 57,000, 58,000, and most of our districts are around 650,000; so that means that every person in American Samoa who votes, their vote counts 10 times, 10 times the amount that your vote and my vote and every other American citizen's vote counts. And that, Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen, and colleagues of the House of Representatives, one, is not fair; and, two, it is not the way our Founders envisioned anybody voting in this House of Representatives.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And it is so important. And I appreciate your bringing up Congressman Johnson's resolution. I spoke for a brief moment on the floor earlier about that as well. And I know that in this Chamber we can disagree about a lot of things, and we should. Our system works best when ideas are exchanged and the best solutions rise to the top, because it really is a battle of ideas. But in this instance we can disagree, as I mentioned, about many things, but we ought not disagree about whether or not our men and women in harm's way, our troops who are defending liberty truly around the globe, ought to receive every single resource that they need in order to defend themselves and to defend us. I know that many folks go to Walter Reed and visit some of those brave men and women who have been injured in battle. I have had the opportunity to do that, and I was struck always by every conversation that I had with some of those men and women who have come back, some with devastating injuries, truly. And I am just so humbled by those conversations that I have with those brave soldiers and warriors because I would try to close every conversation and ask them what it was that we could do to help. What can I do to help? And virtually every single one of them said without fail, Congressman, if you can do one thing, if you can do just one thing, please, please let me get back to my unit. And that kind of enthusiasm, that kind of commitment, that kind of sense of duty and honor and patriotism is chilling. It really is. There are incredible stories that each of them tell, but also I believe those men and women serve as a guidepost for us. And, in fact, we ought to look to them and look to their courage to have the courage that we need in order to support our men and women who are in harm's way. And I am very hopeful that this House of Representatives will support Congressman Johnson's resolution because it truly speaks for, I believe, the vast majority of the American people who want to make certain that, regardless of how you feel about this conflict, we as a Congress state clearly that we will make certain that we provide all of the resources necessary for our men and women in harm's way.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to thank you for your leadership and your organization of this hour, and day in and day out of working here in the Congress to represent your constituents in Tennessee, but working so diligently on behalf of the hardworking American taxpayer out there, making certain that their interests are upheld here in the House of Representatives. I appreciate you bringing up the issue of health care. There are a couple of things that I would be interested in talking about today. But the issue of health care is near and dear to my heart. As you mentioned, I am a physician, or was in my former life before coming to Congress, spent over 20 years in the private practice of orthopedic surgery outside Atlanta. One thing that I knew for certain and that my patients knew for certain was that when doctors and patients are able to make health care decisions, then good decisions get made. When insurance companies or government inserts themselves into those decisions, then most often, most often those decisions do not resemble the kind of decisions that individual persons would make in very personal health care decisions that they have. I appreciate the comments that you made. I would like to commend the President for putting on the table what I believe will be discussed tonight in his State of the Union; that is, the individual tax deductibility of health insurance. I have been a longtime supporter of the right of individuals to have the same kind of benefit that employers do in the purchase of health insurance. So I am pleased that we have heard that that is indeed going to be a possibility brought forward by the President this evening. It would give so many people an opportunity to purchase health insurance that right now are not able to do so financially. So I look forward to that proposal coming forward tonight. And I would be happy to yield back to the gentlewoman and talk about some other issues if you so desire.