Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. If I desired a vote on two separate amendments, is there a way under the rule for that to be accomplished?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Madam Speaker. It is my understanding that this type of rule has never been utilized before. Is the Speaker aware of that?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Speaker.

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 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 proposed 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; 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 principles 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.' '' (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.' '' (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.'' (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; 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, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that because the vote in the Committee of the Whole was within the margin of the number of Delegates that there are in the House, the Committee has now risen and we're in the Whole House and the vote that we are about to have will be the same amendment; is that correct?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Speaker.

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

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move that we reconsider the vote just held.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the rule at the desk.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment that says that we ought to take $100 million, we ought to adopt the President's challenge to the departments, and we ought to save, remove, $100 million from the Department of Justice in this bill. On April 20 the President held his first Cabinet meeting, and he charged the members of his Cabinet with finding $100 million out of their departments in savings. This was to try to live up to his promise of going through the budget line by line. It's important, Mr. Chairman, to put $100 million in context: A $100 million reduction in the President's budget would be 1/40,000th of the Federal budget, 1/7,830th of the size of the ``nonstimulus'' bill adopted earlier this year, 1/1,845th of this year's budget deficit reduced. It would be the amount that the Federal Government spends every 13 minutes. Mr. Chairman, $100 million is what the government spends every 13 minutes. Don't you think we could find $100 million, what we spend every 13 minutes, as savings? It's the equivalent of a family that earns $40,000 cutting a dollar out of their budget. Mr. Chairman, in the context of this bill, it's even more striking. From fiscal year 2008 numbers to this proposal here on the table, a 24.2 percent increase, that's a $13 billion increase, and $100 million is less than 1 percent. Mr. Chairman, it just makes sense, while the American people are struggling, while the American people are tightening their belts, while they're clamoring for us to be fiscally responsible and not spend any more of their money, to save $100 million, find $100 million. Can't we do just that? I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, carefully crafted? Carefully crafted? A 24.2 percent increase, $13 billion increase, carefully crafted? I never suggested that these programs weren't important. What I suggested, Mr. Chairman, was that out of the entire budget of the Department of Justice, can we not save a penny on a dollar? Can we not save a penny on a dollar when the American people are struggling across this land to find pennies that the Federal Government is stealing from them? Can we not just save a penny on a dollar? It's a simple thing to do, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to my friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, again, I think it's important to appreciate that in the context of this overall bill, in the context of this portion of the appropriations process that's gone from $51 billion in 2008 to $64 billion this year, that's a 24.2 percent increase, a $13 billion increase. Can we not find $100 million? In fact, that's what the President asked, to find $100 million in savings. It wasn't too much for the President to ask. Let's help out this administration in their minimal attempts to provide fiscal responsibility, minimal attempts. I urge my colleagues to support an amendment that all it's asking for is saving less than one penny out of every dollar.

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

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is again another very simple amendment. It would reduce the total appropriations in this bill by $644,150,000. Now, you might ask Mr. Chairman, how did I come up with that number? Well, that is 1 percent of the bill. That is right, $644,150,000 is 1 percent of the bill. So what this amendment asks is, is this Congress responsible enough to be able to decrease the amount of spending in this bill by 1 percent, a penny out of every dollar? Now, that is not 1 percent of last year, Mr. Chairman. That is 1 percent off the proposed, and the proposed is an 11.6 percent increase over last year. That means we would go from an 11.6 percent increase to a 10.6 percent increase. Mr. Chairman, do you think we can handle that? Do you think we can handle that? There are a lot of numbers out there across this land. I don't know if you have been paying attention. Outstanding public debt as of today, $11.4 trillion. Outstanding public debt per American citizen, $37,231.22. Average increase in our national debt every single day because of the money spent by this Congress and this administration, $3.82 billion a day--a day, Mr. Chairman. The country's gross domestic product fell by 6.1 percent in the first quarter. The President's budget proposes the 11th-highest annual deficits in United States history. The unemployment rate out there is 9.4 percent, Mr. Chairman. That is higher than the administration assured the Nation it would be if we did nothing--if we did nothing when the non-stimulus bill was passed, 9.4 percent. Mr. Chairman, the Federal tax revenues in this Nation dropped 34 percent in April 2009 compared to 1 year ago--34 percent. Mr. Chairman, one might be able to just extrapolate that the American people are tightening their belts by 34 percent. Do you think this Congress can tighten its belt by 1 percent? A penny out of every dollar, that is all we are asking. And it is not going across-the-board. It is not that meat ax that my friend from West Virginia talks about. It is allowing the department itself to figure out how to save a penny out of every dollar that it spends. We ought to be able to do that, Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from West Virginia's comments, but let's be honest. A cut? A cut? The amount of money spent last year in this area of the budget, $57.7 billion-- $57.7 billion. The amount in this bill to spend, an 11.6 percent increase, remember, Mr. Chairman, $64.4 billion. My amendment, what would we spend? $63.8 billion. Remember, Mr. Chairman, last year we spent $57.7. This year it is 63.8 under this amendment. 57.7, 63.8--that's a cut? Mr. Chairman, a penny out of every dollar. This definition of a cut is like when our teenage son had an allowance each week of $1, and he came and said, Dad, you think I could have $2 a week? I said, No, but we could probably make it $1.50 a week. He said thank you very much. But under this definition, that would be a 50-cent cut. That would be a 50 percent cut. Mr. Chairman, let's be serious. $57 billion last year, $64 billion this year. Do you think we can find a penny on the dollar and move it to $63.8 billion? Are we that irresponsible that we can't do that? There is 9.4 percent unemployment across this land. People are having a difficult time putting food on the table, wondering whether they are going to be able to cover their health care costs, wondering whether or not they are going to be able to send their kids to school. The United States is in danger of losing its Triple A credit rating due to the accumulation of over $1 trillion in debt. Mr. Chairman, when are we going to start? When is this fiscal responsibility out of this crowd going to start? A penny out of every dollar. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that is a minimal amount, a reasonable amount, an amount that the American people look at their folks here in Washington, their representatives here in Washington, and say, Why on Earth can't you find that? Why can't you find it? We ought to be able to do this. In fact, not doing this is morally reprehensible. Not doing this is irresponsible. Not doing this is an abrogation of our duty. Not doing this is a woeful lack of leadership. 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. I want to thank my friend from Virginia for his leadership on this issue and his attempts to promote fiscal responsibility and raise some significant concerns just in general about this piece of legislation. The fact of the matter is that the rule that was adopted by this House to consider this bill in fact waives rules that are supposed to keep us fiscally responsible. So it waives rules that say that you have to have appropriate information about earmarks, and it waives rules to say that the PAYGO rule, that things have to be paid for, that we're not going to drive the Nation further into debt and deficit with the adoption of this. Now, waiving a rule means that you don't follow it. And we don't follow it to such a huge degree in the area of earmarks that I have here the list of earmarks. And they go on, Mr. Chairman, for page after page after page after page in what I think is probably about six font. So it's pretty small. And there are thousands of them, literally thousands. The question becomes whether or not anybody in Washington is listening to the concerns of the American people. And their concern that I hear every weekend when I go home and every day when I talk to my constituents and folks from around this land is that they don't believe that Washington is being fiscally responsible. They see bailout after bailout, they see expenditure after expenditure, they see bill after bill of more money going out the door and not money coming in, more things being done to depress the economy than to improve the economy. And so, Mr. Chairman, it is with great concern that I believe we are launching into this appropriation season, having started the process by setting the precedent that thousands and thousands of earmarks are appropriate and that we are not going to worry about whether or not we pay for the bill itself. So I think that we all ought to listen to our constituents and take pause and think about the issues with which we're dealing here and attempt to be more responsible with the hard-earned taxpayer money. I thank my good friend from Virginia.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.