Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, there's a health care bill that the Democrats have proposed here in the House that would have a major impact on the way that health care is provided in this Nation. One of the areas that hasn't been talked about a lot is long-term care. Specifically, the CLASS Act, Community Living Assisted Services and Supports Act, is included, which would mandate government- sponsored, long-term care insurance on all Americans. Now, unfortunately, the $50-a-day allocation for long-term care insurance is only a portion of the actual cost for the long-term care. Consequently, this is a huge unfunded mandate on who, Mr. Speaker? On you, the American people. Instead, Congress should consider positive solutions which would make long-term care insurance more accessible by allowing it to be covered under FSAs and cafeteria plans and other patient-centered plans. Without a doubt, Americans need a plan in advance for long-term care. They should be allowed to work with family and trusted advisers to ensure their long-term needs are covered. The government should not limit the type of long-term care Americans may select. This is just another example of the government telling people what kind of care they should need and may receive.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, before I came to Congress I spent 20-plus years as a physician taking care of folks in the north Atlanta area, so this whole debate about the health care bill, there are many aspects of it that give me great concern. And the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects of it that give the Nation great concern. So whether it's the government-run program or the takeover of health care or whether it's the potential for huge mandates from the Federal Government, many aspects point to areas of different concern for the American people. And one of them is the issue of rationing, the issue of whether or not the Federal Government should be deciding to what extent which Americans receive medical care. So earlier this year when there was a proposal that was passed in this House and in the Senate signed by the President for something called the Comparative Effectiveness Research Council, fancy name for a potential rationing board, many people voiced concerns about that, as did I. And what we heard from the other side of the aisle, the majority party, the Democrats, they said, Don't worry about that. There will be congressional oversight. Congress will be able to hold their feet to the fire. Well, Mr. Speaker, what's now come out is that may not be the case. The IMAC program, or the Independent Medicare Advisory Council, is a proposal that is being added to the current health care bill that would create a new Presidentially appointed board empowered to make recommendations on cost savings proposals. These are very, very personal medical decisions that we're talking about here, and cost savings proposals oftentimes means rationing. This proposal in the health care bill right now would eliminate all congressional oversight of the Medicare program and put it in the hands of, you guessed it, the White House and the President. It creates a new executive branch agency with unelected board members appointed by the President to make recommendations on the reductions in Medicare payment levels, reimbursement for providers, potentially refusing to pay for services or care prescribed by doctors as they are deemed not to be ``cost efficient.'' That's the language, Mr. Speaker. The bill says that the reforms must ``either improve the quality of medical care received by the beneficiaries of the Medicare program or,'' not and, ``improve the efficiency of the Medicare program's operation.'' Mr. Speaker, this is extremely concerning. This Congress has created the Comparative Effectiveness Resources Board that will have the power to ration care based on cost or quality. It would make the board's recommendations binding in the absence of action by Congress within 30 days if the President approved the recommendation. Now, many Members of Congress are concerned about payment rates in rural parts of the country, yet this board eliminates State and community input into the Medicare program by rendering irrelevant the influence of local Medicare Carrier Advisory Communities, or MCACs, to develop and implement policies expressly applicable to their patient population. Further, it would reduce the availability of patient advocacy groups to implement new policies that would improve the health care of our Nation's seniors. The real concern as a physician is that nonmedical people will be making medical decisions. It's a terrible idea. It's not what the American people want, and they are actually waking up to the proposal that's before Congress right now. And that's why you see the numbers of support across this land decreasing. Let's move in a positive direction. There is a positive direction, and that is to allow quality decisions, medical decisions to be made between patients and their families and caring and compassionate physicians. It's a simple way to do it, not put it in the hands of a bureaucrat, not put it in the hands of the White House, not put it in the hands of the President. Let patients and doctors decide. Mr. Speaker, that's the right way. Mr. Speaker, that's the American way.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 677 and 678 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on No. 677 and ``no'' on No. 678.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, what was one of the major concerns with the nonstimulus spending bill and the national energy tax that have flown through the House? Well, you know what it was, Mr. Speaker. Nobody read the bill. So what should we do with this health care bill? Well, I would suggest that we read the bill; and as somebody has said already, There is just a draft form. But what's in that draft? It would raise taxes on individuals, small businesses, and employers by $818 billion and spend $1.6 trillion to create a system that even the Congressional Budget Office admits would raise, not lower, health costs. The bill would ban the purchase of private individual health coverage as part of a government takeover of health care that independent entities confirm would result in over 100 million Americans losing their private, personal coverage. The House Republicans are for health reform that works. We have a plan for reform that expands access to affordable health care and gives families the freedom to choose health care that fits their needs, not government needs. House Republicans support patients. We will oppose any plan that puts Washington bureaucrats between patients and the care they need. Fewer choices, higher costs, I don't think so.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this House operates under rules, or it's supposed to operate under rules, rules that have been longstanding in the House and that are incorporated in written form. And rule IX of those rules of the House states specifically, Members may raise questions ``affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings'' and those affecting the rights of Members individually in their representative capacity. So the question is, Mr. Speaker, what is more fundamental to the rights of the Members of this House than the ability to represent their constituents and to affect the legislation that's brought to the floor? The Democrat majority, under Speaker Pelosi, has unilaterally--some would say brazenly, some would say repressively--ended a 220-year tradition of allowing any Member to allow a spending bill.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. And that's precisely what I'm attempting to do, Mr. Speaker. When my constituents sent me here to Congress, they didn't send me here to just push buttons. What they sent me here to do was to exercise every single ability that a Member of the House is granted. And one of the abilities that the Member of the House is granted is the opportunity to affect legislation. And under rule IX, which states, Mr. Speaker, that the proceedings should not affect the rights of the Members individually in their Representative capacity, so if being denied the ability to offer an amendment doesn't affect the rights of this House, if it doesn't affect the dignity and integrity of its proceedings, if it doesn't affect my rights as a Representative, then I don't know what does, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what does. If Members are not allowed to offer amendments, then the Member, him or herself, is unable to represent their constituents and consequently is disenfranchising every single American. So, Mr. Speaker, I would contend respectfully that the inability of Members to offer amendments is an indignity upon the House and makes it so that Members are not able to exercise their representative capacity. And I appeal to the Chair to see the light of day and allow this privileged resolution to move forward.

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

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

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 the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Price, submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules to H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010; Whereas the said gentleman's amendment would have required that none of the funds made available in this Act be used to establish, issue, implement, administer, or enforce any prohibition or restriction on the otherwise lawful possession or use of firearms in federally assisted housing; Whereas the Second Amendment of the United States constitution guarantees that ``the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed''; Whereas the Second Amendment applies equally to all Americans, regardless of who owns or pays for their housing; Whereas the gentleman's amendment complied with all applicable Rules of the House for amendments to appropriations measures and would have been in order under an open amendment process, but regrettably the House Democratic leadership has dramatically and historically reduced the opportunity for open debate on this Floor; and Whereas the Speaker, Mrs. Pelosi, the Democrat leadership, and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, prevented the House from voting on the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order under the rule for the bill: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That H. Res. 669, the rule to accompany H.R. 3288, be amended to allow the gentleman from Georgia's amendment be considered and voted on in the House.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in the midst of the worst recession in a generation, so what did President Obama and Speaker Pelosi do? Well, they propose a government takeover of health care that will lead to fewer jobs, higher taxes, and less health coverage. As a physician, I know that government-run health care will end quality care. In addition, since the recession began, 6 million jobs have been lost; yet the Democrats' health care plan includes hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes on small businesses, the job engine creation in this Nation, $800 billion in new taxes. According to the economic modeling by the President's own Chief Economic Advisers, the business tax hikes alone would destroy up to 4.7 million jobs, and amazingly, an independent analysis by the nonpartisan Lewin Group found that 114 million Americans would lose their personal, private health insurance. Mr. Speaker, the American people want real solutions to get our economy back on track, not another excuse to raise taxes on small businesses and working families. House Republicans have a plan for reform that expands access to affordable health care and saves jobs.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 552 and 553, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall Nos. 552 and 553.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It strikes $4.2 million from the bill, decreases the funding in the bill to strike the funding for the President's Council of Economic Advisers. On January 20, 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated as President of the United States, the national unemployment rate stood at 7.6 percent, and the outstanding public debt of the Nation stood at $10.627 trillion. Confronted with this dire situation, the President urged Congress to pass an economic stimulus package. His solution--an end product containing $787 billion in new deficits for special interest giveaways. Despite many of us who claimed, and I would suggest knew, that it wouldn't work, the American people expected immediate results because the President and his administration sold it as such. Peter Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in responding to a question from CNN on when would Americans feel some benefit from the job losses, stated that it will take weeks to months. Now the President and his administration are backtracking on the stimulus package. In his most recent weekly address, the President said, ``The Recovery Act was not designed to work in 4 months. It was designed to work over 2 years.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, that is news to the American people who have taken notice and they have lost faith in the President's economic policies. Most folks think he simply doesn't have a plan that works. And one of the biggest cheerleaders of the President's economic policies, the executive offices most responsible for the ineffective and destructive policies that we are seeing today, is the Council of Economic Advisers and its chairman, Christine Romer. She touted in a report which served as the basis for selling the nonstimulus plan to the American people that under such a plan the unemployment rate would max out at 8 percent if the plan were adopted. In fact, she said, without it, the unemployment rate would top out at 9 percent. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, as well I do, to put it mildly, the administration and Ms. Romer were just plain wrong. The unemployment rate today stands at 9.5 percent, and more than 14 million individuals are unemployed under their watch. Now the Council of Economic Advisers is championing a sweeping new health care reform and selling it as part of the economic recovery. A recent report by the Council of Economic Advisers entitled, ``The Economic Case for Health Care Reform,'' actually claims that slowing the annual growth rate of health care costs by 1.5 percentage points would increase real domestic product. Yet using the Chair's own modeling, House Republicans have determined that 4.7 million jobs would be lost as a result of the taxes on businesses which cannot afford to provide health insurance coverage. So it has become abundantly clear, Mr. Chairman, that everything with this administration is about more government, more taxes, more spending and less jobs. If the stimulus and the health care package aren't proof enough, take a look at the auto bailout, the national energy tax, the upcoming plan to destroy the private student lending system, and on and on and on. So the question must be asked, What responsible economist would actually advocate for this administration's job- killing policies in the midst of a recession? And the answer, Mr. Chairman, is the Council of Economic Advisers. My amendment is more than a vote to eliminate funding. It is a vote of ``no confidence'' on this administration's economic policies and those of the Council of Economic Advisers. They don't have a plan to get America back to work. I would urge that we adopt this amendment, which is a commonsense amendment that moves us in the direction of not only saving money but coming up with a responsible, commonsense plan. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my friend, but if we could hear the American people and their response to, once again, this blaming previous administrations, they would say, look, give me a break. Give me a break. The American people are hurting. Millions of Americans are out of work. Yet the Obama administration and congressional Democrats promised that their $1 trillion stimulus bill would create jobs immediately and that the unemployment rate wouldn't rise above 8 percent. Instead, 1.96 million jobs have been lost since this administration started, and we are $2 trillion more in debt since this administration started. In June alone, almost half a million jobs were lost, driving the unemployment rate to 9.5 percent, the highest level in 26 years. So it is clear that the Democrats' $1 trillion stimulus plan just isn't working. And every American has the right to ask, where are the jobs? Where are the jobs, Mr. Chairman? This is about jobs. This majority clearly doesn't have the appropriate program. This administration clearly doesn't have the appropriate program. Democrats are clearly on the side of more government and more taxes. Republicans, however, Mr. Chairman, are on the side of the American people. I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from South Carolina for his leadership on this issue and for allowing me to speak for a few moments. This is clearly a bill that is supported on a bipartisan basis and something that ought to move forward. It's something that many care about. I would suggest, however, that what the American people mainly care about right now are the economy and jobs. The economy, spending, borrowing, the national debt. The national debt, as of June 30, stood at $11,545,275,346,431. Mr. Speaker, I know that's hard to believe; but that's $37,609.23 for every man, woman and child in America. And over the last month, our national debt has increased by $223.7 billion, a remarkable amount of increase. Since the Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007, the national debt has increased $2.9 trillion. That's over $9,300 a person. At the end of April, the U.S. Government owed China $763.5 billion. This year alone our debt to China has increased by over $36 billion. So the economy is front and center for the American people. It is what is causing them the greatest amount of heartache and the greatest amount of concern. It's what moms and dads across this land are worried about when they tuck their kids in at night. The American people are hurting. Millions of Americans are out of work, and hundreds of thousands continue to lose their jobs each and every month. Now the present administration, the Obama administration, and the Democrats in charge here in Congress promised that their trillion- dollar ``stimulus'' package would create jobs immediately, they said, and unemployment wouldn't rise over 8 percent if their program was adopted. President Obama, in fact, said recently that the stimulus bill had ``done its job'' and is ``working exactly as we anticipated.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that comes as a surprise to the American people, as 1.96 million Americans have lost their jobs since the stimulus was enacted. I'm not quite certain that they believe the stimulus has ``done its job'' and worked exactly as they anticipated. In June alone almost 500,000 jobs were lost, increasing unemployment to 9.5 percent, the highest level in 26 years. So it's clear that the trillion-dollar stimulus package isn't working, Mr. Speaker; and the American people have a right to know, where are the jobs, where are the jobs? Now the good news is that Republicans have a real plan, a real plan for a real recovery--fiscal discipline here in Washington; tax relief for working families, small businesses and family farms, the job creation engine of our Nation. So the American people deserve a recovery plan. They do, indeed. They deserve a plan that puts Americans back to work. No more borrowing, no more spending, no more unemployment. Mr. Speaker, the good news is that Republicans have a positive plan, positive solutions for the economy, for jobs, for energy self-sufficiency and, yes, for health reform. So whether it's the economy and jobs that the American people are concerned about, whether it's being able to put gasoline in their cars so they can get to work for their second or third job, trying to make ends meet at home, whether it's providing health care for themselves and their families, positive solutions do exist. The American people want us, as a Congress, to embrace those positive solutions, and I urge the Congress to act in a positive way.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is enduring one of the most troubling economic periods in its history: 3.5 million Americans have been laid off since this Congress began. Unemployment is approaching 10 percent. Americans are looking for leadership and real solutions to promote economic growth and create good jobs, but the Democrats in charge only offer more borrowing and spending that's delaying recovery and job growth. Americans have lost confidence and trust in this majority to lead us to recovery. Republicans have positive solutions that the American people support: in the economy, to encourage small business, the job creation engine of this Nation; in the area of energy, an all-you-can-create energy policy that would make us independent from foreign oil; and in the area of health care, no government takeover, but putting patients and their families, along with doctors, in charge. Positive solutions are needed, and we ask all House Members of reason to work together for these positive solutions.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, rule IX regarding questions of the privilege of the House states that questions of privilege shall be first those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings. The integrity of its proceedings. Mr. Speaker, clearly, the unprecedented actions that have been taken by the Democrats in charge have disenfranchised every single Member of this House. Appropriations bills have been, by tradition and previously by rule, brought to the floor under what's called an ``open rule,'' which means that every single Member of the House has an opportunity to affect the bill, to represent his or her constituents. Each of us represents basically the same number of folks, 650,000, 675,000. When Members are not allowed to bring amendments to the floor on the spending of their constituents' tax money, that disenfranchises those Members. That is an affront to the House. It presents an indignity to the House. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the closed rule that was passed recently, yesterday, resulted in more closed rules on appropriations bills in this House of Representatives by this leadership, by these Democrats in charge, more than any in the history, not of this decade, not of this century, but in the history of this Republic. Mr. Speaker, in the history of this Republic. Now, I know my friend from California says that this is not the way we want things to operate, but, Mr. Speaker, they control the process. They control the process. They control this tyranny. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed tyranny. It's tyranny by the majority. It's what de Tocqueville warned about over 150 years ago when he said that the majority can indeed shut down the rights of the minority. And that's exactly what is happening, which is why this resolution ought to be a privileged resolution, because what it directs the Rules Committee to do is to return to regular order; return to a process that allows each and every one of us to represent our constituents; return to a process that Mr. Obey, then in the minority on the Appropriations Committee, said, ``We have gotten so far from the regular order that I fear that if this continues, the House will not have the capacity to return to the precedents and procedures of the House that have given true meaning to the term `representative democracy.' The reason we have stuck to regular order as long as we have in this Institution is to protect the rights of every Member to participate. And when we lose those rights, we lose the right to be called the greatest deliberative body in the world.'' Mr. Speaker, the tyranny of this majority, the tyranny of the folks in charge right now, have resulted in an affront on this House. Those actions, these actions have clearly violated the integrity of our proceedings. Therefore, I believe that this resolution qualifies as a privileged resolution of this House. I yield back.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.