Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I do, Madam Speaker.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the rules of the House are important. Following these rules increases the trust of the American people in our institution, in our actions, a trust that is pivotal to the survival of our Republic. The questions of privilege of the House in this resolution come to the floor by virtue of rule IX, which states in part: ``Questions of privilege shall be first those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.'' Integrity of its proceedings, Madam Speaker. Further: ``Those questions of privilege shall be those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of its Members.'' Madam Speaker, the reputation and the conduct of Members and the integrity of our proceedings is in question and is highlighted in this resolution. What could be more questionable than having this House adopt further affronts to this great country in a lame duck session. As the resolution states in just one ``whereas,'' ``Whereas reconvening the House of Representatives in a lame duck session to address major new legislation subverts the will of the American people, lessens accountability, and does lasting damage to the dignity and integrity of this body's proceedings.'' Madam Speaker, the intent of the majority is very clear. They want to spend more, they want to tax more, they want to borrow more, and they wish to harm more job creation in this lame duck session. And the American people don't want this. To positively represent our constituents, I urge the Speaker to allow this resolution to be considered.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today I ask the House to recognize the service and sacrifice of Lance Corporal Jeffrey Cole, a Marine from Woodstock, Georgia. Although just twenty years old, this young man has already earned a place in the ranks of America's beloved veterans. Growing up, Jeffrey Cole saw the examples of his family members who had served in the Army and Air Force. So it is no surprise that while attending Woodstock High School in Georgia's Sixth District, he prepared for his own military service as a member of the school's JROTC unit. After graduation in 2009, Cole became the first member of his family to enlist in the United States Marine Corps, where he attained the rank of Lance Corporal. This past July, duty called. Lance Corporal Cole said goodbye to friends, family, and his young wife Brandi and deployed to Afghanistan. Just a month later, his unit was ambushed while on patrol and came under heavy fire. During this attack, Cole was hit six times--twice in the front, once in the back, once on his side, and twice in his left arm. Although Cole's flak jacket thankfully stopped the rounds to his front and back, severe nerve damage and a severed artery have left him with almost no feeling in his arm. Lance Corporal Cole has now undergone several surgeries to repair his arm, although only time will tell if he will ever regain its use. Yet despite these wounds, his main concern is about his fellow soldiers still in harm's way. It cannot be said strongly enough--this young man has earned the thanks, admiration, and respect of every single American. Choosing to don the uniform of this country is one of the most selfless and honorable decisions an American can make. Jeffrey Cole could have taken many paths in life, but he chose to join our military and give back to the country that he loves. It is because of the service and sacrifices made by him and his fellow service members and veterans that Americans can live free of the oppression and terror experienced by so many around the world today. Lance Corporal Cole will soon return to his family and friends in Woodstock, where the Legionnaires of American Legion Post 316 will live up to their motto as veterans ``Still Serving America'' by hosting our whole community in giving Jeffrey the heartfelt welcome and ``Thank You'' he deserves. He has carried out his duty with courage and commitment, and it is my distinct honor to welcome him back home. May God Bless Lance Corporal Jeffrey Cole, our troops still on the front lines, and all our veterans for their countless sacrifices in defense of this great nation.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of 1st Marine Lt. Scott Fleming who gave his life September 17, 2010, while supporting combat operations in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. His unit was conducting pre-election security operations when he was struck by enemy small arms fire. Scott Fleming was a sophomore at Blessed Trinity High School in Roswell, GA on September 11, 2001. It was those attacks that led him to the decision to join the Marines. He began his training just two weeks after graduating from LaGrange College with a degree in Education. 1st LT. Fleming will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors. He is survived by his father, Joseph and mother, Joanne; wife, Brandi; and sister, Andrea. Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest respect and admiration that we honor 1st Lt. Fleming's sacrifice on behalf of our nation. He is a hero to his countrymen, his family, and his fellow Marines. He reminds us that America is blessed to have so many young men and women willing to stand up and fight to preserve our precious freedoms. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and all our military families, whose selfless dedication to this Nation is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows: Whereas a reconvening of Congress between the regularly scheduled Federal election in November and the start of the next session of Congress is known as a lame-duck session of Congress; Whereas Democrats have recently insinuated that significant legislative matters would deliberately not be addressed during the 111th Congress until after the midterm 2010 elections; Whereas this Congress began its mortgage of the Nation's future with a ``stimulus'' package costing $1.1 trillion that failed to lower unemployment, spur economic growth, or actually address the needs of struggling American businesses and families; Whereas this Congress continued its freewheeling spending with an increase of $72.4 billion in nonemergency discretionary spending in fiscal year 2009 to reach a total spending level of $1.01 trillion for the first time in United States history; Whereas this Congress approved a budget resolution in 2009 that proposed the 6 largest nominal deficits in American history and included tax increases of $423 billion during a period of sustained high unemployment; Whereas the House of Representatives disregarded the interests and opinions of everyday Americans by passing a national energy tax bill that would increase costs on nearly every aspect of American lives by up to $3,000 per person per year, eliminate millions of jobs, reduce workers' income, and devastate economic growth; Whereas this Congress disregarded the interests and opinions of everyday Americans by passing a massive government takeover of health care that will force millions of Americans from their health insurance plans, increase premiums and costs for individuals and employers, raise taxes by $569.2 billion, and fund abortions--all at a cost of $2.64 trillion over the first 10 years of full implementation; Whereas this Congress nationalized the student loan industry with a potential cost of 30,000 private sector jobs and $50.1 billion over 10 years; Whereas the House of Representatives passed the DISCLOSE Act, which would violate the First Amendment and hinder the free speech of citizens associations and corporations while leaving all unions exempt from many of the new requirements, in order to try to influence the outcome of the midterm 2010 elections; Whereas in spite of the House Budget Committee Chairman's 2006 statement that ``if you can't budget, you can't govern'', the Democrat leadership has failed to introduce a budget resolution in 2010 as mandated by law, but instead self-executed a ``deeming resolution'' that increases nonemergency discretionary spending in fiscal year 2011 by $30 billion to $1.121 trillion, setting another new record for the highest level in United States history; Whereas this Congress has failed Main Street through passage of a financial system takeover that fails to end the moral hazard of too-big-to-fail, does not address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and creates numerous new boards, councils, and positions with unconstitutionally broad authorities that will interfere with the creation of wealth and jobs; Whereas this Congress has wasted taxpayer funds on an unnecessary and unconstitutional auto industry bailout, a ``cash for clunkers'' program, a home remodification program (``cash for caulkers''), and countless other special interest projects while allowing the public debt to reach its highest level in United States history; Whereas the New York Times reported on June 19, 2010, that ``[f]or all the focus on the historic federal rescue of the banking industry, it is the government's decision to seize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September 2008 that is likely to cost taxpayers the most money. . . . Republicans want to sever ties with Fannie and Freddie once the crisis abates. The Obama administration and Congressional Democrats have insisted on postponing the argument until after the midterm elections''; Whereas the Washington Times reported on June 22, 2010, that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer stated, ``a budget, which sets out binding one-year targets and a multiyear plan, is useless this year because Congress has shunted key questions about deficits to the independent debt commission created by President Obama, which is due to report back at the end of this year''; Whereas the Hill reported on June 24, 2010, that Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, suggested that ``Democrats might attempt to move `card-check' legislation this year, perhaps during a lame-duck session. . . . `A lot of things can happen in a lame-duck session, too,' he said''; Whereas the New York Times published an article on June 28, 2010, titled ``Lame-Duck Session Emerges as Possibility for Climate Bill Conference'' that declares, ``many expect the final energy or climate bill to be worked out during the lame-duck session between the November election and the start of the new Congress in January''; Whereas the Hill reported on July 1, 2010, that ``Democratic leaders are likely to punt the task of renewing Bush-era tax cuts until after the election. Voters in November's midterms will thus be left without a clear idea of their future tax rates when they go to the polls''; Whereas the Wall Street Journal reported on July 13, 2010, that ``there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation''; Whereas the Hill reported on July 27, 2010, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, at the recent Netroots Nation conference of liberal bloggers, in reference to Democrats' unfinished priorities, ``We're going to have to have a lame duck session, so we're not giving up''; Whereas the Hill reported in the same piece on July 27, 2010, that the lame-duck session will include priorities such as ``comprehensive immigration reform, climate change legislation and a whole host of other issues''; Whereas during NBC's Meet the Press on August 8, 2010, White House advisor Carol Browner stated that Congress would ``potentially'' deal with a national energy tax bill in a lame-duck session; Whereas the Hill reported on August 20, 2010, that Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) said, ``I'm more hopeful about the lame duck session. I have faith that we're going to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell''; Whereas the members of the House Republican Conference, as an alternative to passing a massive omnibus spending bill for next year during a lame-duck session, have called on members of both parties, as a starting point, to work together this month to enact legislation that cuts nonsecurity discretionary spending to 2008 levels (the last year before the wave of bailouts, stimulus spending sprees, and takeovers that have dismayed the American people) for the next year and provides much-needed certainty to American small businesses by freezing tax rates at their current levels for the next 2 years; Whereas recent public polling shows that the American people clearly oppose the idea of dealing with major new legislation in a lame-duck session; Whereas the Declaration of Independence notes that governments ``[derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed''; Whereas the American people have expressed their loss of confidence through self-organized and self-funded taxpayer marches on Washington, at countless ``tea party'' events, at townhalls and speeches, and with numerous letters, emails, and phone calls to their elected representatives; Whereas the Democrat majority has all but announced plans to use any lame-duck Congress to advance currently unattainable, partisan policies that are widely unpopular with the American people or that further increase the national debt against the will of most Americans; Whereas reconvening the House of Representatives in a lame- duck session to address major new legislation subverts the will of the American people, lessens accountability, and does lasting damage to the dignity and integrity of this body's proceedings; and Whereas under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority, and largely due to the current trends of expanding governmental power and limiting individual liberty, the American people have lost confidence in their elected officials, and that faith must be restored: Now, therefore, be it-- Resolved, That the House of Representatives pledges not to assemble on or between November 2, 2010, and January 3, 2011, except in the case of an unforeseen, sudden emergency requiring immediate action from Congress, and that the consideration of any of the following matters does not constitute an unforeseen, sudden emergency: (1) Card check, including H.R. 1409 (111th). (2) A national energy tax, including H.R. 2454 (111th). (3) Any legislation that would provide more authority to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. (4) Any legislation pertaining to the Immigration and Nationality Act. (5) Any legislation making regular appropriations for fiscal year 2011 that would be an increase over previous funding levels. (6) Any legislation increasing any tax on any American.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I do, Madam Speaker.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I hold in my hands here the House Rules and Manual, which includes the rules of the House of Representatives. And under rule IX it states, in part, that questions of privilege shall be those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members. Clearly, Madam Speaker, the reputation and conduct of Members is in question and highlighted in this resolution. What could be more questionable regarding conduct of Members than acting in a disingenuous manner by saying that a lame-duck session will not include controversial items and then planning to do just that? Madam Speaker, the intent of the majority is clear. They wish to spend more, they wish to tax more, they wish to borrow more, and they wish to harm job creation in a lame-duck session. And the American people don't want this. To positively and responsibly represent our constituents, Madam Speaker, I respectfully request that the resolution be considered.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of Staff Sergeant Aaron M. Kenefick who gave his life September 8, 2009, while supporting combat operations in the Kunar province of Afghanistan. A few years ago on Thanksgiving, Aaron had asked his mom what time dinner would be served. He wanted to make sure he would have time to visit his fellow service members at the Veterans Administration hospital. ``That's where the true heroes are,'' he had told his mother. Sergeant Kenefick did not brag about his own achievements and numerous missions. He had received a Purple Heart after being injured by shrapnel and had twice, during his 12-year career, been named Marine of the Year. Nevertheless, called to serve, Kenefick returned to combat. Staff Sgt. Kenefick graduated from Roswell High School in 1997 after moving there as a 10th grader from Williamsville, New York. He joined the Marine Corps after high school. He is survived by his mother, Susan Price and father, Donnie Kenefick; two sisters; and his young daughter, Landon. Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest respect and admiration that we honor Staff Sgt. Kenefick's sacrifice on behalf of our Nation. He is a hero to his countrymen, his family, and his fellow Marines. He reminds us that America is blessed to have so many young men and women willing to stand up and fight to preserve our precious freedoms. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and all our military families, whose selfless dedication to this Nation is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Colonel Kline, for the wonderful leadership that he has provided on our committee and the focus that he's given to this issue. Mr. Speaker, never let a crisis go to waste. It's the defining principle of how this administration and how this Congress govern. We're facing a devastating crisis right now, an oil spill which has ravaged the Gulf of Mexico both economically and environmentally. Out of this crisis there have been reports raising the issue of worker safety on oil rigs. Now, such reports raise very serious questions, which should be dealt with in a very serious manner, matters that require probing and oversight by Congress so that workers are adequately protected and free to report safety concerns. However, what we've gotten from this majority is an unserious response, a political response more interested in taking advantage of the latest crisis. Remember, never let a crisis go to waste. The bill before us today was introduced just this week. There's been no hearing on it, no committee consideration, no input from members of the committee, certainly on our side. Another rush to the floor, don't read the bill, don't read the bill, don't worry about it. Remember, never let a crisis go to waste. And so what's the result? Confusion. With little time to review, we don't know what if any existing Federal whistleblower laws already apply to workers on offshore oil rigs and other employees in these companies. We don't know which agency is best equipped to enforce these new whistleblower protections. These are things that would normally, Mr. Speaker, in the course of activity come out during a committee hearing, during a normal open committee process. But no committee hearing, no committee hearing here. Remember, never let a crisis go to waste. With this Congress, all the serious policy issues are secondary to the politics. Instead, what we get is a bill that establishes a whole new bureaucracy, a whole new whistleblower framework for a specific class of workers. It's an expansive set of protections that applies to health and safety and environmental and any other standards under the OCS Land Act; and yet it's untested, without an explicit description of which agency would even enforce the program. Digging into the language a little deeper, it appears to favor resolution of complaints in Federal court, adding costs and inviting litigation. Remember, never let a crisis go to waste. The Department of Labor only had 300 days to issue a final decision on a complaint or it gets kicked to the U.S. district court. Perhaps this wouldn't be a problem but there's an incentive to stretch out cases. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because bad-faith claims are not deterred. Employers can only recoup $1,000 total in attorneys' fees, which for some law firms--I know this won't come as any surprise to the Speaker-- for some law firms less than a day's work; and even if the Department of Labor decides on a complaint before that deadline and defines it to be nonmeritorious, the case could still move on to court, creating a Federal right to sue. Remember, never let a crisis go to waste. Now, later, Mr. Speaker, Republicans are going to offer a motion to recommit which is a better solution. Our positive solution gets to the heart of the issue, ensuring that workers are adequately protected and free to report safety concerns. It's not simply taking advantage of the latest crisis or rewarding plaintiff's trial lawyers for their support of the Democrat Party. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the positive appropriate solution, the Republican motion to recommit, and defeat the partisan bill now before us.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows: Resolution Pledging not to assemble on or between the dates of November 2, 2010 and January 3, 2011, except in the case of an unforeseen, sudden emergency requiring immediate action from Congress. Whereas the 111th Congress has failed in its promise to be the most open Congress in history, but has instead lost the public's trust by engaging in unprecedented political procedures to advance a partisan agenda; Whereas on January 18, 2006, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stated in prepared remarks, ``Democrats are leading the effort to turn the most closed, corrupt Congress in history into the most open and honest Congress in history.''; Whereas on November 7, 2006, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stated, ``The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.''; Whereas on November 16, 2006, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated, ``This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.''; Whereas on December 6, 2006, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated, ``We promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open Government and we will.''; Whereas incoming Majority Whip Clyburn stated on December 8, 2006 that, ``Democrats will exercise better leadership in the new Congress and work to raise the standard of ethics in this body''; Whereas Speaker Pelosi spoke of individual Member's ethics on January 31, 2007 when she stated, ``These strong [ethics] rules are significant steps toward honest leadership; enforcing these rules is critical to ensuring every Member of Congress lives up to the highest ethical standard''; Whereas on January 5, 2010, while at a press conference during the health care debate, Speaker Pelosi stated, ``There has never been a more open process for any legislation''; Whereas this statement was reiterated by the Speaker while at a press conference on February 26, 2010, when a reporter prefaced a question about Rangel by noting that Speaker Pelosi had promised to run the ``most ethical and honest Congress in history'' she interrupted him to say: ``And we are.''; Whereas more bills were considered under closed rules, 64 total, in the 110th Congress under Democrat control, than in the previous Congress, 49, under Republican control; Whereas fewer bills were considered under open rules, 10 total, in the 110th Congress under Democrat control, than in the previous Congress, 22, under Republican control; Whereas zero bills have been considered so far in the 111th Congress under an open rule; Whereas 26 bills have been considered so far in the 111th Congress under a closed rule, under Democrat control; Whereas this Congress is the highest spending Congress in United States history; Whereas this Congress has presided over the two highest budget deficits in United States history at a time when the public debt is higher than at any other time in history; Whereas this Congress began its mortgage of the Nation's future with a ``stimulus'' package costing $1.1 trillion that failed to lower unemployment, spur economic growth, or actually address the needs of struggling American business and families; Whereas this Congress continued its free-flowing spending with an increase of $72.4 billion in nonemergency discretionary spending in fiscal year 2009 to reach a total spending level of $1.01 trillion for the first time in United States history; Whereas this Congress approved a budget resolution in 2009 that proposed the six largest nominal deficits in American history and included tax increases of $423 billion during a period of sustained high unemployment; Whereas this Congress disregarded the needs and opinions of everyday Americans by passing a national energy tax bill that would increase costs on nearly every aspect of American lives by up to $3,000 per year, eliminate millions of jobs, reduce workers' income, and devastate economic growth; Whereas this Congress disregarded the needs and opinions of everyday Americans by passing a massive Government takeover of health care that will force millions of Americans from their health insurance plans, increase premiums and costs for individuals and employers, raise taxes by $569.2 billion, and fund abortions--at a cost of $2.64 trillion over the first ten years of full implementation; Whereas this Congress nationalized the student loan industry with a potential cost of 30,000 private sector jobs and $50.1 billion over ten years; Whereas this Congress passed the DISCLOSE Act in violation of the first amendment, hindering citizens associations' and corporations' free speech while leaving all unions exempt from many of the new requirements, in order to try and influence the outcome of 2010 elections; Whereas in spite of House Budget Committee Chairman's 2006 statement that ``if you can't budget, you can't govern'', the Democrat leadership has failed to introduce a budget resolution in 2010 as mandated by law, but instead self- executed a ``deeming resolution'' that increases nonemergency discretionary spending in fiscal year 2011 by $30 billion to $1.121 trillion, setting another new record for the highest level in United States history; Whereas this Congress has failed Main Street through passage of a financial system takeover that fails to end the moral hazard of too-big-to-fail, does not address the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac behemoths, and creates numerous new boards, councils, and positions with unconstitutionally broad authorities that will interfere with the creation of wealth and jobs; Whereas this Congress has wasted taxpayer funds on an unnecessary and unconstitutional auto industry bailout, a ``cash for clunkers'' program, a home remodification program (``cash for caulkers''), and countless other pork barrel projects while allowing the public debt to reach its highest level in United States history; Whereas Democrats have recently insinuated that significant legislative matters would deliberately not be addressed during the 111th Congress until after the midterm elections in November 2010; Whereas the New York Times reported on June 19, 2010 that, ``For all the focus on the historic federal rescue of the banking industry, it is the government's decision to seize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September 2008 that is likely to cost taxpayers the most money. . . . Republicans want to sever ties with Fannie and Freddie once the crisis abates. The Obama administration and Congressional Democrats have insisted on postponing the argument until after the midterm elections.''; Whereas the Washington Times reported on June 22, 2010 that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer stated, ``a budget, which sets out binding one-year targets and a multiyear plan, is useless this year because Congress has shunted key questions about deficits to the independent debt commission created by President Obama, which is due to report back at the end of this year.''; Whereas the Hill reported on June 24, 2010 that Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, suggested that Democrats ``might attempt to move `card-check' legislation this year, perhaps during a lame-duck session. . . . `A lot of things can happen in a lame-duck session, too,' he said in reference to EFCA.''; Whereas the New York Times published an article on June 28, 2010 titled ``Lame-Duck Session Emerges as Possibility for Climate Bill Conference'' that declares ``many expect the final energy or climate bill to be worked out during the lame-duck session between the November election and the start of the new Congress in January.''; Whereas the Hill reported on July 1, 2010 that ``Democratic leaders are likely to punt the task of renewing Bush-era tax cuts until after the election. Voters in November's midterms will thus be left without a clear idea of their future tax rates when they go to the polls.''; Whereas the Wall Street Journal reported on July 13, 2010 that, ``there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.''; Whereas the Hill reported on July 27, 2010 that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, at the recent Netroots Nation conference of liberal bloggers, in reference to Democrats' unfinished priorities, ``We're going to have to have a lame duck session, so we're not giving up.''; Whereas the Hill reported in the same piece on July 27, 2010 that the lame duck session will include priorities such as ``comprehensive immigration reform, climate change legislation and a whole host of other issues''; Whereas the Declaration of Independence notes that governments ``[derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed''; Whereas the American people have expressed their loss of confidence through self-organized and self-funded taxpayer marches on Washington, at countless ``tea party'' events, at town halls and speeches, and with numerous letters, emails, and phone calls to their elected representatives; Whereas a reconvening of Congress between the regularly scheduled Federal election in November and the start of the next session of Congress is known as a ``lame-duck session of Congress''; Whereas the Democrat majority has all-but-announced plans to use any ``lame-duck Congress'' to advance currently unattainable, partisan policies that are widely unpopular with the American people or that further increase the national debt against the will of most Americans; Whereas any such action would be a repudiation of the American people's expressed will and would not comport with the Democrats' public statements promising transparency and accountability; and Whereas under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority, and largely due to the current trends of Government expansion and freedom retrenchment, the American people have lost confidence with their elected officials, and that faith must be restored: Now, therefore be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) reaffirms the principle expressed in the Declaration of Independence that governments ``[derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed''; (2) recognizes the fundamental importance of trust existing between the American people and their elected officials; (3) confirms that adhering to the will of the people is imperative to upholding public trust; (4) states that the American people deserve to know where their current elected officials stand on key legislative issues before Election Day; (5) states that delaying controversial, unpopular votes until after the election gives false impressions to voters and deliberately hides the true intentions of the majority, while denying voters the ability to make fully informed choices on Election Day; and (6) pledges not to assemble on or between the dates of November 2, 2010 and January 3, 2011, except in the case of an unforeseen, sudden emergency requiring immediate action from Congress.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Senator Paul Coverdell, one of the most kind and thoughtful and deliberate Members of Congress, passed away 10 years ago this past Sunday. Senator Coverdell was a strong leader in Georgia for decades, serving as a State senator for 19 years and as a United States Senator for 7 years before his untimely death of a cerebral hemorrhage on July 18, 2000. His dedication extended far beyond the political arena. He was a veteran of the United States Army and served as the Director for the Peace Corps from 1989 to 1991. In honor of Senator Coverdell, the Centers for Disease Control established the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry that helps implement State-based registries able to track care for acute stroke and help expand the knowledge and improve the quality of care. His legacy lives on. Senator Coverdell was an inspiration to so many of us to dream big dreams and to answer the call to preserve this great Nation. He knew that the wonder and the awe of America rests in the principles of our founding documents and our people. We will always remember his patriotism and his wisdom.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, look, this ought to sound pretty familiar. Here's just part of this bill, another 2,000-page monstrosity. Look at it, Mr. Speaker. It's down there held together by rubber bands. It is called the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill. Senator Dodd even said about it, ``No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.'' That's no way to do business. The fundamental assumption of this bill is that since the smart people regulating banks let us down, we should just hire really, really smart people to prevent it from happening again. That assumption is not only false, it's dangerous. When the government picks winners and losers, the Nation loses. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that the same regulators who failed to see the housing crisis are now going to see the next crisis thanks to heavy-handed government regulation, then the American people would say to the Democrats in charge that they put too much faith in the power of Washington to see the future. The fundamental question we've got to answer is, If this law were in place in 2008, would it have prevented the crisis? The answer to that question is clearly ``no.'' More oppressive job-killing regulation isn't the answer. What we need is flexible and accountable and nimble regulation. This bill does not do it. What will it do? It will ensure bailouts. It puts bailouts in place forever. It doesn't address Fannie and Freddie, at the epicenter of the problem. It doesn't address it at all. It kills American jobs with oppressive regulation, and it will decrease the availability of credit and increase the cost of credit to all the American people. And that's even more angering to Americans because they know that there are positive solutions. H.R. 3310 is the bill that we put forward nearly a year ago now that would make certain that we address the issue of regulatory reform in a positive way that makes it more flexible and nimble, that addresses the issue of Fannie and Freddie, actually solves the challenge that got us into this crisis in the first place, and makes certain that we end bailouts. The American people are sick and tired of bailouts. That bill, Mr. Speaker, will ensure that bailouts continue. The American people are urging us to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of Jonathan K. Peney, a citizen-soldier who gave his life June 1, 2010, during combat operations in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. As a member of the U.S. Army Rangers, Jonathan distinguished himself. After graduating from high school, Peney enlisted in November 2005 from his hometown of Marietta, Georgia. For more than two years, he served as a combat medic in 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. He was an expert in advanced medical treatment and selflessly dedicated to the care of others--even at the risk of his own life. Sergeant Peney was born in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, on July 1, 1987, but called Georgia home. He is survived by his wife Kristin E. Peney of Savannah, Georgia, and his mother Sue L. Peney of LaGrange, Georgia. Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest respect and admiration that I honor Sergeant Peney's sacrifice on behalf of our nation today. He is a hero to his countrymen, his family, and his fellow soldiers. He reminds us that America is blessed to have so many young men and women willing to stand up and fight to preserve our precious freedoms. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Peney family and all our military families whose selfless dedication to this nation is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her leadership on issues of the utmost importance to the American people. My friend says we are not here to talk about the debt that has been created in this Nation; we are here to talk about money. We are here to talk about the taxpayers' money. And this bill, this underlying bill that is being discussed right now spends another $33 billion. That is right, Mr. Speaker, another $33 billion of hard-earned money from the American taxpayer. But it can't come from the American taxpayer, because we have so much deficit right now. So it needs to come from where, China or Japan. Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of what is going on here in Washington. Just this week the American people said in a survey that the greatest threat to this Nation, which they believe had been terrorism, is now debt. Debt. What they are saying to us is stop the madness. So what the Republicans have done, in an attempt to be fiscally responsible and try to encourage our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop the madness, is to institute the YouCut program. It is at republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut, and this week's winner, these are the American people going to this Web site saying stop the madness, cut in this area, this week's winner will save $15 billion by selling excess Federal property, property that is not being used right now, sell it for $15 billion. Every single week we try to identify those programs, those areas of the Federal Government that are recklessly spending the hard-earned taxpayers' money. And this week, there are five more new nominees that will be announced. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to go to the Web site, republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut, and vote for whether or not they want to prohibit hiring of new IRS agents to enforce the new health care law, saving $10 billion, whether they want to terminate exchanges in the Whaling and Trading Partners program, another $90 million in savings.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Or you vote to terminate taxpayer-subsidized political party conventions. That is right, Mr. Speaker, we spend tens of millions of dollars paying for Democrat and Republican party conventions. That is crazy. Or you could vote to require collection of unpaid taxes from Federal employees, a billion dollars we could save there; or to terminate the funding for the NDIC, $440 million. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not just about whether or not we are acting responsibly here. It is what we are doing with the hard-earned taxpayer money. We are talking about money here, and this bill that you are talking about spends an extra $33 billion that we do not have. In fact, there is money appropriated already through the TARP program, over $500 billion of money available. You could use some of that if you wanted to be fiscally responsible. But, Mr. Speaker, we have seen that kind of leadership out of the majority party. Mr. Speaker, the YouCut program allows the American people to assist in those things that they believe are wasteful in our Federal Government. This bill is an opportunity through the PC to be able to cut the excess Federal property.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for working with me on this amendment. And although, as they know, I am opposed to the underlying bill, this amendment is extremely important to highlight the serious problem of mixed messages that financial regulators are sending to our community banks. And I appreciate the support of the chairman on this amendment. Banks in Georgia employ almost 50,000 people and hold $276 billion in assets. Most of these banks are community institutions, which were mere bystanders to the financial and liquidity crisis of the last 2 years. Late last week, the Treasury Department reported that TARP will cost less than they originally estimated. In fact, Treasury expects to spend less than the $550 billion of the $700 billion authorized. Regrettably, this figure does not factor in the bailouts for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG. But even so, this is a revolving taxpayer bailout fund, meaning that there is $550 billion that the administration and leadership could put towards small business lending. However, the administration chose not to do this and, instead, wants Congress to appropriate another $33 billion of taxpayer money. That's right, another $33 billion. Certainly, small business lending is a priority for banks and businesses. However, this bill doesn't address the underlying causes of contraction in lending but invests much more in a failed regulatory agency. Unfortunately, the mixed messages being sent by failed bank regulators will not be fixed. Instead of making the FDIC and the other regulators send a clear, consistent message to our Nation's banks, this Congress feels that throwing more money at the problem will fix it. In February, bank regulators, both State and Federal, issued a joint statement providing guidance to banks and to credit unions, encouraging them to make loans to credit-worthy small business borrowers. The regulators described the guidance as intended to ``emphasize that financial institutions engaging in prudent small business lending after performing a comprehensive review of a borrower's financial condition will not be subject to supervisory criticism for small business loans made on that basis.'' However, reports from the field show a much different picture. I hear from bankers in my district and across our State that there is capital to lend. However, I also hear from those same banks that they're nervous and anxious about the unpredictable regulators' response and scrutiny of their regulatory capital ratios and loan requirements. For many banks, it's easier and better just to ride out the storm by hoarding their cash than to justify every penny that they lend to the regulators, possibly risking their capitalized standing. Banks cannot hold capital for regulatory compliance and comply with regulators' instructions to lend at the same time. They're mutually exclusive. My amendment states that these mixed messages sent by the regulators are a very serious problem and a cause of the contraction in small business lending and are destructive to communities. In order to highlight this, I urge adoption of the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady for her support of the amendment and would just point out, once again, the mixed messages that are being received by our community banks. I would also like to point out that the amount of money left available in TARP right now could easily cover the intent of this bill. However, this bill has in it an extra $33 billion, $33 billion, Madam Chair, that, frankly, we do not have as a Nation. We put it on backs of our kids and grandkids and borrow it from some other nation when we could be utilizing money that has already been appropriated for the same positive purpose. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to commend the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for moving this particular piece of legislation. I particularly want to commend the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for her great work in this area. She has been a dynamic and an excellent leader in this area and, indeed, she is to be commended. Mr. Chairman, this bill incorporates some very positive moves. Clearly, the housing market has had significant challenges, and the question that we ought to be asking ourselves is how best to recover. Most experts would agree that, in order to move forward, we need to move toward less market distortion. It might be helpful if we focus on the FHA's mission and the focus and the requirements that they have on them. We all support the FHA mission. The mission is to serve first-time homebuyers in underserved communities, but the FHA didn't get to a 30 percent market share, Mr. Chairman, by lending to first-time homebuyers and by serving underserved communities. In terms of the requirements of the FHA, the requirements of the FHA are 3.5 percent downpayment. The private sector requires at least 10 percent. The FHA is required to hold a 2 percent capital reserve ratio, but it's actual ratio is 0.53 percent. A bank is required to hold 10 percent capital reserve ratio. A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal said, According to Mortgage Bankers Association data, more than one in eight FHA loans is now delinquent, nearly triple the rate on conventional nonsubprime loan portfolios. Another 7.5 percent agreed that FHA loans are in serious delinquency, which means at least 3 months overdue. The FHA is almost certainly going to need a taxpayer bailout in the months ahead. The only debate will be about how much it will cost. A former chief credit officer of Fannie and Freddie Mae, Edward Pinto, notes that ``FHA's high-risk lending practices negatively impact the housing finance marketplace.'' Mr. Chairman, you can translate that into being increasing taxpayer exposure. So if we are honest with ourselves, when appropriately sized, the FHA does indeed do a wonderful job and is very helpful. But at this point, this is just another government program that is distorting the market. FHA's huge market share is a hindrance to regaining equity in the housing market. In addition, Fannie and Freddie's unlimited government lifeline is also a hindrance to the housing recovery. My amendment would ensure that the FHA no longer crowds out the private market for home loans. The amendment is a modest first step to cap FHA new origination market share to no more than 10 percent of the private-market home loans each year, beginning in 2010 so there is significant time to adjust, so the American people are not further exposed to the next bailout. Mr. Chairman, that means the taxpayer is not exposed to greater liability. The American people are sick and tired of bailouts. They see another one on the horizon. It is time for us to act. No more bailouts. What they are telling us across this country is to stop the madness. This amendment begins the process of stopping that madness. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.