Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I request the remaining time on each side?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble), a productive and active member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. May I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about this budget, a lot of information, and a lot of numbers have been tossed around. My friends on the other side say that their budget will create 8.8 million jobs; where does that come from? It was made up. They say that our budget slashes 3 million jobs; where does that come from? It was made up. They say our budget will increase taxes on the middle class; where does that come from? It was made up. What is a fact about jobs? A fact about jobs is the President's health care law, the Congressional Budget Office has said, will decrease the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs. That is a fact. That is a fact. So if my friends, my colleagues in the House here, if you want to increase taxes by $6.6 trillion, vote for their budget. If you want $8.4 trillion in more spending over the next decade, vote for their budget. If you want to increase debt by $8.2 trillion more than the Republican budget, vote for that budget. We believe there is a better way, that there are real solutions. We recognize this is a dangerous world; therefore, we increase spending on defense and making certain that our men and women who stand in harm's way have the resources they need. We believe that opportunity needs to be expanded and pro-growth tax policies are the things that get the economy rolling again and get jobs being created. We understand that Medicare and Medicaid are in difficult straits financially, something that our friends on the other side of the aisle bury their heads in the sand about, so we put in place in our budget a program to save and strengthen and secure Medicare and Medicaid, recognizing that patients need to be in charge of health care, not the Federal Government. We recognize that energy policy needs to be expanded so that we responsibly utilize the blessing and the resources that have been provided so that we can become energy independent as a country and not rely on nations that don't like us. We also recognize that balancing the budget is imperative if we are going to get our fiscal house in order and get our economy back on track. Our budget is the only budget that is being presented on the floor of this House, compared to the other side of the aisle, that gets to balance. Our budget, compared to the other side of the aisle, not only gets to balance, gets us on a path to paying off our entire debt. It is a positive, optimistic budget. I urge support of the Republican budget and defeat of the Progressive budget. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by commending the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, for his wonderful and positive work on real solutions. When I go back home and I talk to folks, they say: Well, don't y'all have any solutions that will actually work? That is what this is. This is a real solution, a commonsense solution. My constituents back home in the Sixth District of Georgia also tell me that they are saddened and disheartened by the comments that we hear from the other side, primarily, on dividing Americans, pitting one American against another. It really is a cynical ploy. It may be politically opportune, but it is not helpful. It is not helpful for the discourse that we have in this country. It is not helpful for us reaching those real solutions; so I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: let's get together and work together and find those real solutions. What my constituents back home also tell me is that the path we are on just isn't working. The economy is not thriving; record deficits continue. I mentioned the mantra of division that seems to be the MO of the other side, but the other side, the Democrats, seem to be happy with all this. They seem to be happy with an economy that is not thriving. They seem to be happy with an economy that has resulted in fewer Americans working. They seem to be happy with fewer success stories across this country. They seem to be happy that more jobs are leaving the country, as opposed to being created here. They seem to be happy with higher and higher taxes and more and more spending. They seem to be happy with borrowing more money from foreign countries. They seem to be happy with compromising opportunities for future generations. We believe that there is a better way, that there are positive solutions and real solutions, and that is our budget--a responsible, balanced budget; yes, a balanced budget, a path to prosperity for every single American. We have had a little discussion over the past few minutes about defense. I want to talk about some specific issues in our budget, defense being one of them. This is a very dangerous world. Our budget recognizes that. It realizes the danger that we have and that our allies have, and we increase spending for defense and for national security. We account for that in our budget in a positive way. The President, irresponsibly, seems to bury his head in the sand. His budget, as has been mentioned, puts us back at pre-World War II levels for our men and women in uniform. That is not consistent with what the American people see in the real world right now, so what we do is account for that and increase defense spending in a responsible way. In the area of health care, I am a physician. I recognize that the world of health care is in an upheaval. There are physicians leaving their practices. There are seniors who are losing their doctors. There are new Medicare patients who are unable to find physicians. In fact, the actuaries of Medicare--not Republican or Democrat--but the actuaries of the Medicare system have said that the system is going broke. Within a 10-year period of time, it will not be able to provide the services for seniors that have currently been promised. Our budget positively addresses these issues. We save and strengthen and secure Medicare. How? With positive reforms; putting patients in charge, not government in charge. In fact, the proposal that we outlined a number of years ago and continue to include in our budget right now, the premium support for seniors, making it so that they have more choices, the Congressional Budget Office did a study on that exact program published last September. They recognize that this program that is proposed by the Republicans will not only save money for seniors, but it will save money for taxpayers--real positive solutions. Again, it will put patients in charge and not government. Another exciting difference between our proposal, our budget, real solutions and the other side, is that we understand that a growing economy is essential to getting us back on the right track. The past 5 years have certainly not been helpful. The Congressional Budget Office, once again, has evaluated our proposed policies and has said that, if we are able to get our economy back on the right track by instituting our plan of saving over $5 trillion, that there would be significant benefits to the economy. Realistic scoring shows that--and I will quote from the Congressional Budget Office--``CBO finds that reducing budget deficits is a net positive for economic growth. Deficit reduction creates long-term economic benefits because it increases the pool of national savings and boosts investment, thereby raising economic growth and job creation. These benefits are both significant and lasting.'' That is our budget, positive growth in the economy and significant and lasting benefits to the American people.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Finally, I want to just mention briefly the issue of the debt. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said just a few years ago that the number one threat to our national security is not the threats that we see from other nations and rogue regimes, it is the threat of our national debt. The American people know this. We are over $17 trillion in debt, and the President continues to spend, in his budget, record deficits--record annual deficits. The Path to Prosperity, the plan that we are proposing, gets us back on the right track, gets us on a path to balance, balancing within a 10-year period of time, and on trajectory to pay off the entire debt of the United States of America, thereby increasing economic opportunity and viability and all. We are for the greatest amount of success for the greatest number of Americans and the greatest number of American Dreams being realized. The way that you do that is through the Path to Prosperity, a balanced and responsible budget. I urge my colleagues to support this balanced budget.

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 on H.R. 1874.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I want to thank Chairman Ryan of the Budget Committee for his tireless work and activity, especially in the area of budget process reform. He understands, as we all do, that the budget process is broken, clearly by the results that we have had or have not had here in Congress over the past number of years. I also want to commend the Budget staff and my staff for the work that they have done on bringing this bill forward and the work they have done on the commonsense kinds of reforms that are necessary in the budget process. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple and a commonsense piece of legislation. What we do here has consequences. What we do in Congress has consequences. Some of them are good; some of them are bad. This amendment, when adopted, will allow us to have more information upon which to make decisions here in Congress. This is especially helpful in the area of economic activity. Economists from across the political spectrum agree that legislation considered by Congress can have significant effects on economic growth, what happens in the real world. Major legislation, such as the tax reform legislation that is being discussed right now, is likely to have longer-term macroeconomic effects that will increase growth and, as a result, produce increased revenues, reduce spending, or some combination of the two. For example, the Congressional Budget Office's, CBO's, prior macroeconomic work has shown that deficit reduction has positive economic effects. I will quote from one of their reports: Over the medium term and long term, when economic output is determined by the supply of labor and capital in the productivity of those inputs, the reduction in Federal borrowing that would result from smaller deficits would induce greater national saving and investment and, thereby, increase output and income. In another report, Congressional Budget Office work concluded that: Higher marginal tax rates tend to discourage some economic activity. Now, while the current law that we operate under requires that the Congressional Budget Office provide Congress with information on the fiscal impact--what something costs--of all legislation reported from a committee, there is no systematic requirement for analysis of the economic impact, the realistic effects in the real world out there in the economy. This bill remedies that shortcoming. This bill would require that the Congressional Budget Office provide a macroeconomic impact analysis for legislation that the CBO--that the Congressional Budget Office--estimates would have a budgetary impact of more than .25 percent of the annual gross domestic product. That is about $43 billion. In addition, the bill would require that the Congressional Budget Office provide a statement of the critical assumptions and sources of data underlying their estimate. This new macroeconomic impact analysis would not, Mr. Chairman--would not--replace the current work that CBO does, but it would provide more important information. I can't imagine anybody in this House who desires us not to have more information on the pieces of legislation that we are dealing with. So, again, this is a simple, commonsense, and, I hope, bipartisan bill that we will be talking about and voting on today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I urge my friend from Maryland to read the bill. Read the bill. This isn't about tax increases or tax decreases specifically. Page 4, the macroeconomic impact analysis. An estimate of the changes of economic output: employment, interest rates, capital stock, tax revenues, all. In fact, the kinds of things that the gentleman points to in infrastructure or education, if they have an economic impact of greater than .25 percent of the gross domestic product, they would be evaluated and we would get a report from CBO on that. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, Chris Stewart.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the chairman of the Budget Committee and an individual who knows well the imperative of reforming the budget process.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a very productive member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a senior member of the House Republican Conference.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?