Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, America has been the light of liberty and a beacon of hope to the world for centuries, truly centuries. We are the greatest Nation the world has ever known. We have provided more hope and more opportunity and more liberty and more freedom for more individuals than any nation in the history of mankind. But today, July 9, 2009, folks in my district and folks across this land are not just concerned; they are fearful. They are afraid that the very Nation that they know and love and that has been the greatest Nation in the history of the world is slipping away from them--in so many ways, so many ways. Mr. Speaker, we all just got back to Washington from a week many of us spent at home over the July 4 break, and I heard people come up to me and tell me that they were concerned and worried and fearful about the amount of spending and the amount of borrowing and the amount of taxing coming out of Washington. They say Washington is out of control. Mr. Speaker, they are right. They are absolutely right. The deficit this year, $1.8 trillion; four times the largest previous deficit. Four times. Borrowing. We are borrowing 50 cents of every single dollar we are spending. Mr. Speaker, it is out of control. Taxing, raising taxes on every single American. I don't care what the President tells you, Mr. Speaker, it is not true. They are raising taxes on every single American. Now the solution, one of the solutions, is to allow this deliberative body, this greatest deliberative body in the history of the world the opportunity to allow the Representatives in this body to work their will, to say I believe I am going to represent my constituents in this way and offer this amendment on this bill and thereby allow the House to make a decision. We are in appropriations season, Mr. Speaker. It is a time when we decide how to spend Americans' hard-earned money, the money that they send to Washington. During that season in the past, the House has allowed appropriations bills to come to the floor under what is called an open rule which means that everybody gets the opportunity to amend the appropriations bill. They get the opportunity to offer an amendment in the House, and the House gets to vote on the amendment. There have been amendments offered on recent bills that have not been allowed. In fact, this is the most repressive majority in the history of the Republic if you use the number of closed rules, not allowing amendments to come to the floor. This, Mr. Speaker, this is the most repressive majority ever in the history of this Republic. An amendment that was offered but not allowed to the bill we voted on today would have prohibited funding for any new international organization for the purposes that would tax American energy companies from abroad. The only conclusion I can draw is that the Speaker and the Democrats in charge want American energy companies to be taxed by foreign governments. An amendment that wasn't allowed would have reduced the spending 15 percent on this bill to 2009 levels, a savings of $17 billion. That amendment, Mr. Speaker, was not allowed. I can only assume that the Speaker and the Democrats in charge want to increase spending by $17 billion over 2009 levels. An amendment that wasn't allowed, an amendment to prevent U.S. funds from being used to pay the legal expenses of United Nations employees who have been charged with malfeasance, not allowed. Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that the Speaker of the House and the Democrats in charge want the American taxpayers to pay the legal expenses for United Nations employees who are charged with malfeasance. Mr. Speaker, an amendment that wasn't allowed would have prohibited assistance to members of foreign terrorist organizations. Mr. Speaker, the only thing I am left to conclude and the American people are left to conclude is that this Speaker and the Democrats in charge want the American taxpayer to provide assistance to members of foreign terrorist organizations. Mr. Speaker, this isn't the way the House is supposed to be run. It is not the way that the House has been run for the last 233 years. It is not the way that the American people learned about democracy, that their Representatives would be allowed to represent them actively and aggressively so that people had the opportunity to represent their constituents equally with every other Member. Mr. Speaker, right now in this Chamber we have tyranny from the majority, tyranny that is not allowing the voice of the people to be heard. Mr. Speaker, I demand that this Chamber, that these Members of this House of Representatives make certain that the rules are appropriately followed and end the tyranny of the majority in this Chamber now.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you so much, Dr. Burgess, for your leadership on this issue and so many others. And I want to thank you for your participation we had at the event at George Washington University and really the wonderful perspective that you bring as a physician to the table. In my previous life, I was an orthopedic surgeon. I spent 20-plus years practicing orthopedic surgery in the Atlanta area. As we move forward with health care reform, it's clear that something is coming. And I get asked by folks: What kinds of things don't we want? What kinds of things can they do to us that would be bad? And I would suggest, Dr. Burgess and colleagues, three things that would be a death knell for quality health care in the United States. The first is ceding the definition of quality to the Federal Government. If we say as a society that we are going to allow the bureaucrats, nonmedical individuals, to decide what quality health care is, as has been proposed by the President through his Comparative Effectiveness Research Council and others with the list of programs that you've heard Mr. Shadegg describe just a moment ago, then that would be a death knell for American medicine. Quality truly is only known by compassionate, caring physicians and patients and their families who know what is best for them because there is no way that the government can define what's best for each and every individual. The second death knell for quality health care I believe to be any mandate, any individual or employer mandate. If individuals are required to purchase health insurance, that's a death knell. If employers are required to provide health insurance, that's a death knell. Why? Well, it's a mandate, which is a bad idea. But more importantly, when we here in Washington mandate something, what we do is define what we are mandating, and in this instance we would demand what qualified as health insurance or health coverage. Dr. Burgess, you well know that this Congress would define something that doesn't include all sorts of robust things already out there in the marketplace like health savings accounts, medical savings accounts, high-deductible catastrophic plans, some cafeteria plans. They wouldn't only be unavailable, they'd be illegal. This Congress would make them illegal. So the notion that if you like what you have, you can keep it is just folly. It's power fiction. And the final death knell to the quality of American health care I believe to be any government-run program, any government takeover of any portion of our health care system beyond where it already is, the public option as it's described, which is a euphemism for a government takeover. And why is that? Well, I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, and really folks across this land, to think about your health care principles. What are your health care principles? What do you believe ought to be foremost in any bill that we produce? I've got six of them. They're accessibility, we ought to have accessibility to the health care system for all Americans; affordability, it ought to be affordable. It ought not to have the costs rise more than they should; quality, we need to have the highest quality of health care; responsiveness and innovation, we need a system that's responsive and innovative; and then choices, we need choices. Those are my six: accessibility, affordability, quality, responsiveness, innovation, and choices. I would suggest to my colleagues that none of those, in fact, I would suggest that none of the principles that any American could come up with, are improved by the intervention of the Federal Government. None of them are improved by more government control. None of them are improved by an administration that believes that a health czar is what we need as opposed to the highest quality of medicine. There are wonderful solutions, and I know we will be talking about them this evening. I want to commend my colleague from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for his leadership on this issue and can only hope that as we move forward, we are allowed to have an open and a vibrant discussion so that the Congress of the United States can have the benefit of the wonderful experience of people on both sides of the aisle as we move forward to solve this remarkable challenge in the area of health care.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate my friend from Arizona's comparing it to auto insurance because that's what you oftentimes hear. You hear folks say, well, we require folks to have automobile insurance, why shouldn't we require them to have health insurance? And you allude to the fact that mandatory automobile insurance doesn't result in everybody having automobile insurance.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. It doesn't work. That's why you don't do it for health insurance. But more importantly, if one mandated health coverage, then we, again, cede the definition of what that coverage would be to the Federal Government. And ceding the definition of what automobile insurance is is one thing; ceding the definition of quality health care, something so personal to each and every one of us and our families, I would suggest is a step in the wrong direction.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. You said that 48 States mandate auto insurance, two States don't, but the two States that don't have a higher level of insured motorists?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. So the moral of the story is?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mandates don't work.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

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: Whereas on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was inaugurated as President of the United States, and the outstanding public debt of the United States stood at $10.627 trillion; Whereas on January 20, 2009, in the President's Inaugural Address, he stated, ``[T]hose of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.''; Whereas on February 17, 2009, the President signed into public law H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; Whereas the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included $575 billion of new spending and $212 billion of revenue reductions for a total deficit impact of $787 billion; Whereas the borrowing necessary to finance the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will cost an additional $300 billion; Whereas on February 26, 2009, the President unveiled his budget blueprint for FY 2010; Whereas the President's budget for FY 2010 proposes the eleven highest annual deficits in U.S. history; Whereas the President's budget for FY 2010 proposes to increase the national debt to $23.1 trillion by FY 2019, more than doubling it from current levels; Whereas on March 11, 2009, the President signed into public law H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009; Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 constitutes nine of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009 which had not been enacted before the start of the fiscal year; Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 spends $19.1 billion more than the request of President Bush; Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 spends $19.0 billion more than simply extending the continuing resolution for FY 2009; Whereas on April 1, 2009, the House considered H. Con. Res. 85, Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY 2010; Whereas the Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY 2010, H. Con. Res. 85, proposes the six highest annual deficits in U.S. history; Whereas the Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY 2010, H. Con. Res. 85, proposes to increase the national debt to $17.1 trillion over five years, $5.3 trillion more than compared to the level on January 20, 2009; Whereas Congressional Republicans produced an alternative budget proposal for FY 2010 which spends $4.8 trillion less than the Congressional Democrats' budget over 10 years; Whereas the Republican Study Committee produced an alternative budget proposal for FY 2010 which improves the budget outlook in every single year, balances the budget by FY 2019, and cuts the national debt by more than $6 trillion compared to the President"s budget; Whereas on April 20, 2009, attempting to respond to public criticism, the President convened the first cabinet meeting of his Administration and challenged his cabinet to cut a collective $100 million in the next 90 days; Whereas the challenge to cut a collective $100 million represents just 1/40,000 of the Federal budget; Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, funds to banks stood at $197.6 billion; Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding TARP funds to AIG stood at $69.8 billion; Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding TARP funds to domestic automotive manufacturers and their finance units stood at $80 billion; Whereas on June 19, 2009, the outstanding public debt of the United States was $11.409 trillion; Whereas on June 19, 2009, each citizen's share of the outstanding public debt of the United States came to $37,236.88; Whereas according to a New York Times/CBS News survey, three-fifths of Americans (60 percent) do not think the President has developed a clear plan for dealing with the current budget deficit (New York Times/CBS News, Conducted June 12-16, 2009, Survey of 895 Adults Nationwide); Whereas the best means to develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway Federal spending is a real commitment to fiscal restraint and an open and transparent appropriations process in the House of Representatives; Whereas before assuming control of the House of Representatives in January 2007, Congressional Democrats were committed to an open and transparent appropriations process; Whereas according to a document by Congressional Democrats entitled ``Democratic Declaration: Honest Leadership and Open Government,'' page 2 states, ``Our goal is to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government.''; Whereas according to a document by Congressional Democrats entitled ``A New Direction for America,'' page 29 states, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''; Whereas on November 21, 2006, The San Francisco Chronicle reported, ``Speaker Pelosi pledged to restore `minority rights' - including the right of Republicans to offer amendments to bills on the floor . . . The principle of civility and respect for minority participation in this House is something that we promised the American people, she said. `It's the right thing to do.' '' (``Pelosi's All Smiles through a Rough House Transition,'' The San Francisco Chronicle, November 21, 2006); Whereas on December 6, 2006, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated, ``[We] promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government and we will.''; Whereas on December 17, 2006, The Washington Post reported, ``After a decade of bitter partisanship that has all but crippled efforts to deal with major national problems, Pelosi is determined to try to return the House to what it was in an earlier era - `where you debated ideas and listened to each others arguments.' '' (``Pelosi's House Diplomacy,'' The Washington Post, December 17, 2006); Whereas on December 5, 2006, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer stated, ``We intend to have a Rules Committee . . . that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.'' (``Hoyer Says Dems' Plans Unruffled by Approps Logjam,'' CongressDaily PM, December 5, 2006); Whereas during debate on June 14, 2005, in the Congressional Record on page H4410, Chairwoman Louise M. Slaughter of the House Rules Committee stated, ``If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule, not just appropriations bills, which are already restricted. An open process should be the norm and not the exception.''; Whereas since January 2007, there has been a failure to commit to an open and transparent process in the House of Representatives; Whereas more bills were considered under closed rules, 64 total, in the 110th Congress under Democratic 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 Democratic control, than in the previous Congress, 22, under Republican control; Whereas fewer amendments were allowed per bill, 7.68, in the 110th Congress under Democratic control, than in the previous Congress, 9.22, under Republican control; Whereas the failure to commit to an open and transparent process in order to develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway Federal spending reached its pinnacle in the House's handling of H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010; Whereas H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 contains $64.4 billion in discretionary spending, 11.6 percent more than enacted in FY 2009; Whereas on June 11, 2009, the House Rules Committee issued an announcement stating that amendments for H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 must be pre-printed in the Congressional Record by the close of business on June 15, 2009; Whereas both Republicans and Democrats filed 127 amendments in the Congressional Record for consideration on the House floor; Whereas on June 15, 2009, the House Rules Committee reported H. Res. 544, a rule with a pre-printing requirement and unlimited pro forma amendments for purposes of debate; Whereas on June 16, 2009, the House proceeded with one hour of general debate, or one minute to vet each $1.07 billion in H.R. 2847, in the Committee of the Whole; Whereas after one hour of general debate the House proceeded with amendment debate; Whereas after just 22 minutes of amendment debate, or one minute to vet each $3.02 billion in H.R. 2847, a motion that the Committee rise was offered by Congressional Democrats; Whereas the House agreed on a motion that the Committee rise by a recorded vote of 179 Ayes to 124 Noes, with all votes in the affirmative being cast by Democrats; Whereas afterwards, the House Rules Committee convened a special, untelevised meeting to dispense with further proceedings on H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010; Whereas on June 17, 2009, the House Rules Committee reported H. Res. 552, a new and restrictive structured rule for H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010; Whereas every House Republican and 27 House Democrats voted against agreeing on H. Res. 552; Whereas H. Res. 552 made in order just 23 amendments, with a possibility for 10 more amendments, out of the 127 amendments originally filed; Whereas H. Res. 552 severely curtailed pro forma amendments for the purposes of debate; Whereas the actions of Congressional Democrats to curtail debate and the number of amendments offered to H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 effectively ended the process to deal with runaway Federal spending in a positive and responsible manner; Whereas Congressional Democrats continue to curtail debate and the number of amendments offered to appropriations bills; Whereas on June 18, 2009, the House Rules Committee reported H. Res. 559, a restrictive structured rule for H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2010; Whereas H. Res. 559 made in order just one amendment out of the 20 amendments originally filed; Whereas on June 23, 2009, the House Rules Committee reported H. Res. 573, a restrictive structured rule for H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010; Whereas H. Res. 573 made in order just 9 amendments, with a possibility for 5 more amendments, out of the 91 amendments originally filed; Whereas on June 24, 2009, the House Rules Committee reported H. Res. 578, a restrictive structured rule for H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010; Whereas H. Res. 578 made in order just 8 amendments, with a possibility for 5 more amendments, out of the 105 amendments originally filed; and Whereas the actions taken have resulted in indignity being visited upon the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) the House of Representatives recommit itself to fiscal restraint and develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway Federal spending; (2) the House of Representatives return to its best traditions of an open and transparent appropriations process without a pre-printing requirement; and (3) the House Rules Committee shall report out open rules for all general appropriations bills throughout the remainder of the 111th Congress.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, this would be humorous if it weren't so doggone sad. This national energy tax bill will impose a massive tax that even the President's own aides have admitted would cost $2 trillion to taxpayers. The President himself boasted about the enormous cost saying, ``under my plan of cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' Indeed, this plan would increase taxes on American families by $3,100 and raise their energy bill by $1,500 a year. This national energy tax will force many businesses to outsource jobs overseas or close their doors altogether, which will cost over a million jobs annually. Amazingly, it will have little or no impact on the environment. Many experts believe the environment will be adversely affected since many companies will be forced overseas where emission and environmental standards are minimal or nonexistent. Hundreds of groups such as the NFIB, the U.S. Chamber, and the National Association of Manufacturers oppose this legislation. Tax and government watchdog groups, including the National Taxpayer Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and Citizens Against Government Waste, oppose this legislation. This bill is bad for the environment and bad for the American people. Just vote ``no.''

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, unanimous consent request.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it's been estimated, with great accuracy, that between 2.3 million and 2.7 million jobs will be lost each year with this bill. I would ask unanimous consent that the House rise for a moment of silence to recognize those who will lose their jobs because of this bill.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, questions of privileges of the House come to floor by virtue of rule IX of the House of Representatives which states, in part, questions of privileges 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. The Commerce, Science, Justice, Appropriations bill that was outlined in the resolution that has just been read--clearly, the actions taken by the Democrats in charge, clearly have disenfranchised every single Member of this House, limiting their ability to effectively represent their constituents. Madam Speaker, these actions, these actions by the Democrats in charge have violated, I believe, and I believe that the Members of the House would concur, have violated the integrity of our proceedings, and therefore I believe that this resolution constitutes a privileged resolution. I yield back.

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 move that the vote on the amendments be divided.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I move that the amendments be divided.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, isn't it true that rules routinely provide for a separate vote to be allowed when the Committee rises on amendments being offered in the Committee of the Whole?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, if a Member voted ``no'' on one amendment and ``yes'' on another amendment and wanted the opportunity to have a separate vote on those two amendments, my understanding is that the ruling of the Chair and the rule prohibits a separate vote on those two amendments; is that correct?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.