Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Pennsylvania states that all we look at are spending cuts alone, that that's the way we believe the budget ought to be balanced. Certainly not. In fact, we believe strongly that pro-growth policies will actually assist in getting us to balance much, much sooner. The CBO yesterday, in fact, said that currently the revenues within a 10-year period of time are going to double; in fact, the revenues this year, this fiscal year, will reach the 10-year average, and the revenues in the next fiscal year will be the highest level of revenues ever recorded in the history of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, we have a spending debt crisis, not a revenue debt crisis. My colleague says that we reject a balanced approach. On the contrary. In fact, all you've got to do is read our budget. There's a balanced approach. It brings about appropriate spending reductions, appropriate closure of loopholes in credits and reductions of the Tax Code to gain revenue in pro-growth policy so that we can balance the budget. My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about needing to vote on the sequester right way, to change the sequester right away. In fact, that's exactly what House Republicans have done two times, Mr. Speaker, in the last year, once in May, once in December. In fact, the recent bill we adopted reprioritized the spending reductions included in the sequester so that there was a calculated way to reduce spending that did not have across-the-board spending reductions. Our friends on the other side oppose that. Mr. Speaker, the President's sequester, the item that he put in place, we have proposed positive solutions for on two occasions and passed through this House. The Senate has refused to act on those. The President yesterday proposed a plan in a speech, not specific legislation, that, in fact, we've talked about through our proposals that we passed through this House on two occasions, in May and December of last year. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is pretty doggone simple. It only asks the President to do what families do and businesses do all across this Nation every single year, and that is to make certain that we don't spend more money than we take in. House Republicans on two occasions over the past 2 years have passed a budget that gets us on a path to balance. We will do it again. Two weeks ago we passed a bill out of this House to make certain that we held the Senate to account, to require them to do a budget, something they haven't done in the last 4 years. The bill before us today simply says to the President, Mr. President, when you bring your budget to Congress, just let us know when it comes to balance, that's all. And, oh, by the way, the past four budgets that the President has proposed have not ever come to balance. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that the House and the Senate and the President work together to get a balanced budget to spend responsibly so we can reinvigorate this economy and create jobs. Turn down this motion to recommit. I urge my colleagues to accept the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, it is probably appropriate to refocus ourselves on the bill that we're discussing today, that's before us today, H.R. 444. It simply does one thing. It says to the President: when you bring a budget to Congress, tell us when it's going to balance. That's all it does. Now, the sequester is an important issue, there's no doubt about it. President Obama's sequester is an important issue. House Republicans have passed two times spending reductions that prioritize in a much more responsible way. We agree that it ought to be much more responsible. The ball is in the Senate's court. The ball is in the President's court. This bill, though, simply says to the President: when you bring your budget to us, just let us know when it balances. That's important because the last four budgets that the President has brought to this House, to this Congress, have never, ever balanced. I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to our distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to commend my friend from Maryland on the other side for trying to change the subject. There's a lot of talk over here about the sequester. That's an important issue. There's no doubt about it. We look forward to that debate. This is about having the President submit a budget to Congress that balances, and we're concerned about that because the last four budgets that this President has submitted to this Congress have never, ever balanced. With that, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a new Member on our side of the aisle, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another new member of our Conference, the gentleman from Texas, who knows a significant amount about budgets and who is a new member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Williams.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another new member of our Conference, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Sometimes in these conversations and debates, Madam Chair, it's important to set the record straight. My friend from Maryland says that the reason the President hasn't been able to submit his budget on time--by the way, the law is by February 4, the first Monday in February--is due to what happened at the end of last year. I would remind my colleague that President Obama has missed the budget deadline more than any other President. In the 90 years since the President has been required to submit a budget to Congress by the first Monday in February, President Obama is the only President to miss the deadline 2 years in a row, and he's the only President to miss the deadline 3 out of 4 years in his first term. So that's just to set the record straight. Secondly, I would remind my friend from Maryland that the last time this country had a balanced budget it was a Republican Congress that did it. In fact, President Clinton vetoed the budget twice and then signed it, but it was a Republican Congress, and we reduced taxes at that time. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to our policy chair on the Republican side, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, this is pretty simple stuff. It's what families do across this country. It's what businesses do across this country, and that is to make certain that they don't spend more than they take in. All this bill does is say to the President, When you bring your budget to the Congress, Mr. President, let us know when it balances. And hopefully it's not never, as he's had for the last 4 years. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the vice chair of our conference, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and although possibly well-intentioned, we're not saying at all that this is just on the President's watch, that this is simply this President that is culpable, but you'd have to ignore the President's fiscal issues that he's had over the past 4 years to think that he didn't have a hand in this. On taking office, President Obama promised to cut the deficit in half. Madam Chair, the deficit, when the President entered office, was $458 billion. We all know that the deficit last year was $1.3 trillion--hardly in half, not even with new math. Instead, he's presided over four straight trillion-dollar-plus deficits. Spending is 22 percent higher at the end of this President's first term than it was when he took office. Under his own budget, spending will be 40 percent higher at the end of his second term if Congress were to go along with the proposals he brings forward. And finally, the President is on track to double the national debt by the end of his term in office. Now, my new colleague from California says that all you've got to do is pass a budget through the Congress and all things will be wonderful, and the House Republicans have passed a budget. And, Madam Chair, it's been a budget that has put us on a path to balance, yes, and we'll do that again this year. But I will remind my colleague that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in nearly 4 years, which is why 2 weeks ago this Congress, this House, passed a bill--No Budget, No Pay--where we finally got the Senate to admit that they hadn't passed a budget. And, oh, yes, by the way, they'll do one this year. We got their attention. So, Madam Chair, though well-intentioned, trying to change the subject and the issue a little bit, this amendment doesn't--doesn't-- assist in getting us to the point where it is the President's responsibility to tell the American people--in fact, it's only fair for the President to tell the American people when he brings his budget forward, when will it balance. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, what time remains for each side, please?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I urge a rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I want to commend my colleague from Oregon and the colleagues that came together to submit this amendment, as I believe it truly to be well-intentioned, but I think it misses the mark. I think for two reasons, specifically, that it ought not be adopted by this body. First, it unnecessarily restricts the ability of the President to determine how he would balance the budget. Remember, the underlying bill doesn't tie the President's hands in any way. It simply says to the President when you submit your budget to Congress, just let us know when it's going to balance. And if it's not going to balance within the period of time that's defined by the budget window, then tell us when it's going to balance, and tell us what you're going to do to make it come into balance. And the reason that balance is important, Madam Chair, is not just because it makes numbers, zero equals zero on a page somewhere. It's because it's about the economy, to get the economy rolling again and get jobs being created. That's why it's important. Secondly, this amendment would have the President build his balanced budget around a foundation that never balances. A lot of talk about Simpson-Bowles, and I commend them for the wonderful work that they did. However, if you get down into the details of that, there are some things in there that just simply will not work. And the biggest thing is that it never gets to balance. So the underlying bill again, Madam Chair, is crafted very carefully so that it gives the President the greatest amount of flexibility to propose how he believes the budget ought to be balanced. And finally, maybe the most important thing about this, the inadequacy of this amendment, is that the President has already rejected the findings in the Simpson-Bowles commission. The President's already rejected it, his own commission; said never mind, that's not the way I want to do it. So we would suggest that allowing the President the greatest amount of flexibility on how he would propose to balance the budget--something he's never done, but we want to leave him the greatest amount of flexibility, so we ought to retain the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, again, I think the intention of the amendment is sound. However, it's important to appreciate that the Simpson-Bowles approach fails to address the primary driver of spending, and that's health care. And maybe that was why the President rejected it. I don't know. But the fact of the matter is that the Simpson-Bowles approach leaves in place the President's health care law with its $1.7 trillion in higher spending, soon to be over $2 trillion, and its trillion-plus dollars higher taxes. So I think this amendment, again, ties the President unnecessarily and that it's a step in the wrong direction. I would urge its defeat. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I commend the gentleman once again, but I would point out that there's nothing in the underlying bill that precludes the President from using this as a model if that is what he so desires. But there isn't any reason why we ought to constrain the President to hopefully bring to this Congress a budget that, for the first time in this administration, actually gets to balance. That's what the underlying bill is all about. Mr. President, bring us a budget. Just tell us when it balances, because, oh, by the way, the last four budgets that you submitted have never gotten to balance. I urge defeat of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.