Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. So the Speaker is not aware of whether or not that text will be available 48 hours prior to the vote?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, we weren't able to hear on this side what the gentleman asked unanimous consent for.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further reserving, Madam Speaker, I would just point out that the ratio on the floor of the House is approximately 59 percent majority party, 41 percent minority party. However, in committees, many committees, that ratio is not adhered to. We on the minority side have asked the Speaker to make certain that the committees reflect the percentages on the floor of the House. It was impossible to discern from the names read, but we would reiterate our concern to the Speaker regarding the percentages on committees reflecting majority and minority party.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am interested in the comment just made by the gentleman from Northern Virginia, Mr. Connolly. If the gentleman would take a question, I'd be pleased to yield to him for an answer. Mr. Connolly, would you be interested in taking a question? I was interested in your comments, because you said, Mr. Connolly from Northern Virginia----

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, the gentleman said these are the worst economic times, and this will stimulate infrastructure. I was wondering if the gentleman was aware that only 7 percent, or $26 billion of the $274 billion in infrastructure money, will be spent by the end of this budget year. And adding the interest, this stimulus, which will exceed $1.1 trillion, will cost each and every American $3,300 in this economy. Does the gentleman think that that is a wise idea? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask the gentleman to tell the House if he believes that in this worst economy that it's appropriate to put in place a policy that makes it so that each and every American is liable for $3,300 more; $3,300 more for each and every single American. Is that an appropriate policy to be put in place at this time, I would ask the gentleman.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. That is indeed the appropriate question. And that is why you hear individuals on our side of the aisle fighting on behalf of the American taxpayer, fighting on behalf of American jobs, fighting on behalf of appropriate policy that will in fact stimulate the economy.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. We all want our economy to turn around. The question really isn't is this too much or too big, although I believe it to be. The question is, Will it work, and, What else is in this bill? I want to highlight an item that is buried in this bill. The Comparative Effectiveness Research Council. $1.1 billion for this board. In the language, it states, regarding health care, ``Those items, procedures and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those no longer found to be effective and, in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.'' Mr. Chairman, this is the beginning and the foundation of nationalized health care.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. In fact, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said in his book that this body would have recommendations that may not have teeth because all Federal health programs would have to abide by them. But Congress would go back and further the board's recommendations. It could, for example, link the tax exclusion for health insurance to insurance companies that comply with the board's recommendations. Mr. Chairman, this is indeed the foundation of rationing of American health care for each and every American. Not only will there be no stimulus in this bill, there will be major policy changes to health care; nationalized health care on its way, courtesy of the majority party.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, we all commend the President- elect for his vision of hope and of bipartisanship. It was with that same spirit of bipartisanship that the original SCHIP bill was adopted in the mid-1990s when Republicans and Democrats recognized together the need for assisting children in low-income families by providing access to health insurance. Remember? Probably not, because it was done quietly and proudly together. That's in stark contrast to now. With overbearing partisanship from the majority's cramming this highly charged bill through today and by ignoring vital problems, this bill will throw 2.4 million kids off private, personal health insurance into government-run bureaucratic medicine. You talk about immoral. This bill requires over 20 million new smokers, Madam Speaker--new smokers--in order to pay for it. How very cynical. That's a problem, because there were so many positive alternatives. I introduced with over 20 of my colleagues More Children, More Choices that would have provided up to $42,000 of coverage for the original children, premium assistance of up to $64,000 and then State flexibility beyond that. Bipartisan rhetoric is hollow if it is not followed with bipartisan action. This bill does not do that. It betrays the spirit of the President-elect, and it betrays all Americans. I call on the Speaker to begin an open and positive process, respecting all Members and respecting all Americans.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for his stellar leadership on this issue. Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are, another $350 billion, $350 billion. Now, I don't want to overstate the obvious, but Mr. Chairman, that's money that we don't have. In addition to that, the process points that have been made I think are incredibly important. We haven't had any appropriate committee work. We've had a discussion, but there hasn't been the hearings devoted specifically to this bill. There hasn't been a markup. We haven't had the opportunity in committee to amend this bill, to have Member input. Members haven't had the opportunity to provide input into the development of the legislation. The mere fact that there are 70 amendments filed with the Rules Committee, 50 of them from Democrats, clearly demonstrates that Members on both sides of the aisle have concerns about this legislation and ideas that they would like to share. We've seen bailout after bailout after bailout, yet our constituents have felt no relief. We cannot, in good conscience, allow the government to dig deeper into their pockets and spend their money without giving their elected Representatives the opportunity to be heard. Fundamentally, Mr. Chairman, we're talking about examining a vital role. What's the vital issue that says a lot about what we believe our government role ought to be? We're being asked to entrust Treasury with the authority to spend an additional $350 billion, a huge sum of money, and allowing them to take on additional risk to the taxpayers by pursuing modifications that have not yet proven to be a wise investment. Now, we can all agree that the oversight of the initial TARP program has been wanting, there's no doubt about that; that's evidenced by the fact that Treasury completely shifted the original purpose of the program without consultation or consequence. Treasury has failed to answer basic questions, they have struggled to track the billions of taxpayer dollars, and they seem to have no way to measure the success of this program. When Secretary Paulson initially approached Congress with an urgent request for funding and broad authority to stabilize the economy, a representative from the Treasury admitted that they were arbitrarily picking a number. In fact, when we asked a senior member at the Treasury Department how did they arrive at $700 billion, do you know what they said, Mr. Chairman? They said, ``We needed a really big number.'' Well, that's not terribly encouraging as to how to arrive at the amount of taxpayer money that they are putting at risk. There have been no indications that the last tranche of funding is needed, indeed, to further stabilize the economy. There have been no emergency meetings to explain why this money is necessary and how it would be used effectively to justify this release. In fact, just a few days ago Mr. Kashkari described our financial system as ``fundamentally more stable'' than when we began. Ultimately we have seen, through the failures of the TARP program and the Hope for Homeowners Program, that the government isn't the solution to all of our problems. Again, we've seen bailout after bailout, but there doesn't yet seem to be any relief for constituents and taxpayers. It's because of the hasty passage of the TARP program in the first place that we're now in the position to consider sweeping changes to the program. The regular democratic process in order would ensure that all Members of Congress can make their voice heard on this very important issue. To say that there isn't time to have a markup is not only disingenuous, Mr. Chairman, it simply is not true. We should take the time necessary to ensure that we are truly acting in the best interests of the American people. Perhaps if we had taken the time to allow for markup and evaluation initially, we would not be in the situation that we find ourselves now. Rather than entrenching our government with $350 billion of additional debt, I think it's time that we start considering positive solutions that embrace American values, American principles, and American solutions, none of which appear in the underlying bill.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it's a new Congress and, yes, it's a new day. But what we're debating isn't that new. It's, in fact, a recycled campaign promise to a favored special interest, and a sad reminder of the path this majority continues to take this country. As most folks already know, equal pay for equal work is the law of the land and it has been since the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Generally, businesses do a tremendous job paying employees fairly, regardless of gender. But the bill before the House today treats wage discrimination as if it were systematic. And in the midst of economic challenges, we're failing to address the real challenges affecting Americans' wages and the purchasing power of their paychecks. If this measure becomes law, power will be turned over to bureaucrats and trial lawyers to interject, distort and oversee how wages are determined through lawsuits and through regulations. It means less incentive, Mr. Speaker, less incentive for employers to offer a variety of working situations like flex time or more limited travel, because doing so may put an employer at risk of being sued; hardly a wise action on their part. In turn, current and prospective workers will suffer through lower wages, slower job creation or simply fewer opportunities to meet individual worker needs. All of this leads, Mr. Speaker, to this motion to recommit. One of the distinctive changes being made today to the Equal Pay Act is the inclusion of unlimited compensatory and punitive damages in a lawsuit. As Members already know, compensatory damages redress wrongful conduct and punitive damages are to deter future wrongful conduct. But under the Equal Pay Act, an employee does not need to show discriminatory intent in order to prevail. As some have correctly described this bill, it's a boondoggle for trial lawyers. They'll be able to collect unlimited damages, even, Mr. Speaker, even when a disparity is not intended. This serves no legitimate purpose and turns the Equal Pay Act into a lottery. That's why this motion is a simple, commonsense change that caps reasonable, reasonable attorney's fees at $2,000 per hour. Now, surely we can agree on that. By limiting attorney's fees, it is the intent that lawyers would take cases based on actual discrimination and merit and prevent lawsuit abuse. Today's litigation system, unfortunately does little to restrain the filing of lawsuits. It's why lawsuits can result in millions of dollars in lawyers' fees, yet plaintiffs get pennies on the dollar. It's why tort costs consume approximately 2 percent of our Gross Domestic Product, billions of dollars. It's why 10 percent of every dollar spent on health care is attributed to the cost of liability and defensive medicine, hundreds of billions of dollars. This cap on attorneys' fees will ensure that victims of discrimination are protected with appropriate incentives. Without a cap, this bill will have a detrimental effect on labor markets. Increasing lawsuits and unlimited damages will discourage hiring and may further segregate employment preferences for one gender in favor of another. On this side of the aisle Republicans understand that fair-minded business folks want to make an honest living without favoring political friends or bureaucrats impeding job creation or dictating how a business should be run. Let's adopt this motion to recommit. It's a new Congress and a new day, but let's not make a first act an old, recycled campaign promise to political friends. I urge adoption of the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, here we find ourselves at the end of the first week of this new session of the 111th Congress. There is a lot of talk and has been a lot of talk since the election about bipartisanship. There has been a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about bipartisanship, and that is important. I am a strong supporter of bipartisanship, and everybody talks about it. Bipartisan discussions, however, require bipartisan action. If action in a bipartisan way doesn't follow those discussions, then credibility is denied. Now, I firmly understand and appreciate that elections have consequences, and the election of this past November resulted in a House, the United States House of Representatives, with a membership ratio of 59 percent on the Democrat side and 41 percent on the Republican side. So on the floor of this House, that is the ratio, and it is reflected in votes even this week. Nobody would argue, I don't believe, Madam Speaker, that every single Member, every single Member of this House is important. We all represent virtually the same number of people, and it is pivotal that each and every Member be given the appropriate and equal opportunity to be involved in the process, because that is what gives credibility to representative government. Now, as you and I both know, Madam Speaker, and as our colleagues know, the bulk of the congressional work is done in committees. That is where the critical issues are debated, that is where the hard work is done, that is where the issues are tossed back and forth and where solutions are hammered out. Now, when voices are silenced, either by not being able to speak in committee for various problems with rules or when individuals are not even allowed to sit in committees, then it does a disservice to each and every American. We are better when we are tussling with those ideas, when we are working as hard as we can to come up with the appropriate solution for our Nation. We are not better when we are just talking about politics. Again, in reviewing the ratios on the House floor, they are 59 percent Democrat, 41 percent Republican. Most Americans, if you asked them, would say that is what ought to be reflected in the committees, because that is where that hard work is done, that is where those issues are hammered out. I agree those ratios should be reflected in committee. If they aren't, then America is cheated and democracy is cheapened. The committee ratios are incredibly important because they determine the work product that occurs in this House. So, again, Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives, 59 percent Democrat, 41 percent Republican. Now, when we look at committee ratios that have just come out this week, it appears that on some of the most pivotal committees where issues like taxes and financial services and health care are going to be decided, that ratio has not held. The ratio appears to be closer to 63 percent Democrat, 37 percent Republican. This is a significant decrease of a significant number of seats, and it disenfranchises many Americans across this Nation. It is a matter of fairness, Madam Speaker. It is a matter of fairness. The American people may not care about the specific processes here, but they do care about fairness. So I call on the Speaker, I call on the majority leader, I call on the majority party, to make certain that the committee numbers, the numbers, the ratios of Democrats to Republicans in our committees, reflect the appropriate ratio that is reflected on the floor of the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, it is a matter of fairness.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue and hosting this hour and pointing out probably one of the most stark pieces of contrast information this early in the session with the poster you have there, where the President-elect said just today, ``Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy.'' It really is remarkable when you think about it. I know the American people believe in themselves strongly, I know we believe in them, and I know that they know that government isn't necessarily the answer to all of our woes. We are talking about solutions. We have remarkable challenges, and everybody wants a solution to this. But the root word of ``solution'' is to solve, and to take government money that has been talked about here that is not the government's money, that is the people's money, I am making just a short point on that, this is tax money that we don't have; that we don't have. People think we are talking about this $1.2 trillion or something like it is sitting over here in the corner and all we have got to do is figure out how to spend it. Well, it is not. It is on the backs of the children, grandchildren and now great grandchildren of the adults in this Nation. That is wrong. That is wrong. There is a solution. There are positive solutions out there. You and our colleagues have talked about some of them today. They are allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money, making it so that businesses, small and large, can create jobs, unlock the credit crisis, the credit freeze that we have had, and make certain that we move in a direction that allows the economy to expand and allows jobs to grow without spending money that we don't have. That is one of the huge differences between the folks in charge right now and those of us who believe strongly in the American people and believe strongly in American principle, in American vision and American values, that would embrace a solution that would champion the individual, champion the American people. So I want to commend you for what you are doing, and just mention that one of the casualties of all of this discussion is the concept of what a zero means. A zero tacked on to a zero tacked on to a zero with a one put in front is a lot of money when you get a lot of zeros, and the American people, frankly, Members of Congress, have lost sight about what a trillion dollars is. One trillion dollars is virtually one-third of our current revenue that comes into the Federal Government, and when we are talking about trillion dollar deficits, that is spending again money that we don't have for, as the President-elect said today, as far as we can see. That is not the kind of policy that will result in positive improvement for the men and women across this Nation and growth in our economy, which is what we need. The gentleman from Georgia knows that, having served at the State level and having put in place policies that have created remarkable opportunity for so many people. I wanted to thank you for your leadership.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very serious time and a remarkably challenging issue. The good news is that there are positive solutions that are available. We've been told that the bill before us tonight is a limited bill. I would ask my colleagues, compared to what? There are many reasons that one might oppose this bill and support some positive, tried-and-true solutions, but I would suggest that the most important issue upon which to oppose this bill is on Page 15, under the authority of the car czar, which says that the President's designee, or the car czar, may prohibit the eligible automobile manufacturer which received the loan, from consummating any such proposed sale, investment, contract, commitment or other transaction. That means, Mr. Speaker, that one individual will have complete authority and power over three private American automobile manufacturers. That's a level of power in one individual, one bureaucrat, that is inconsistent, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, with both American values and with American solutions. Now, what's the solution? Well, it's a tried-and-true process that thousands of companies, large and small, are able to go through, a legal, a court-ordered, a court-approved reorganization and restructuring. It allows all stakeholders to come to the table and make concessions. It requires all stakeholders to come to the table and make concessions, and that's what's going to be necessary to allow our automobile manufacturers to get through this and come out on the other end vibrant and vital entities in the American marketplace. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this and to support a positive, tried-and-true solution.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I object.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, environmental education increases awareness and knowledge about environmental issues while providing needed skills to make informed decisions. When utilized appropriately, it enhances critical thinking and problem solving but does so without advocating a particular viewpoint or a course of action. But the bill before the House today is establishing a framework that could become ripe for abuse, with outside factions directing learning in the classroom. It is why Republicans are offering this motion to recommit in order to ensure there is no undue political influence in the classroom while protecting the interest of taxpayers. This motion to recommit is a commonsense package of safeguards aimed at protecting taxpayers' wallets, limiting special interest influence, and taking partisanship out of the classroom. Currently, none of those safeguards are present in this bill. The first safeguard ensures that priority funding goes to local school districts first. Since 1992, more than 50 percent of environmental education grants have gone to nonprofit organizations. American taxpayers are paying for these programs, so it makes sense that their dollars go to local schools and children before third parties. The second safeguard prohibits funding to any organization that lobbies or retains a lobbyist, especially those special interests that routinely advocate against more American-made energy for Americans. It is no coincidence that the same groups and affiliates which are suing to block oil and gas leases are also lobbying and receiving funds for environmental education. And the final safeguard makes certain that information in the classroom is fair and balanced. Its aim is to ensure that classrooms remain free of partisan or political influence and that science, not a political or ideological agenda, is what students are taking away from their learning experiences. In committee I raised the point that certain organizations, textbooks, and curricula have misinformed students by advocating erroneous specific measures to address environmental problems. Even worse, environmental information has been presented with unbalanced or scientifically inaccurate data. On this side of the aisle, Republicans do not want such uneven portrayal. But there is a greater reason for offering this package of reforms: Republicans do not want the very same radical special interests that are directing energy policy in the United States to have the same influence in our classrooms. The high price of gasoline is squeezing family budgets. And this Congress has yet to cast a vote during this energy crisis that truly expands exploration and the production of American-made energy. Republicans have a plan to increase domestic production, provide tax credits to promote clean and reliable sources of energy, and encourage conservation to ease demand for gasoline. But roadblock after roadblock has been erected. Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 50 days since the Speaker and this majority, the majority party, turned off the microphones, turned off the cameras, and turned down the lights and silenced the will of the American people on the House floor. Nearly 50 days since the good folks across the aisle made it abundantly clear that election year special interests are more important than the public interests. Republicans are going to continue to champion for an all-of-the-above energy solution. But this is a moment in which the House can make certain that those who are writing our Nation's anti-energy policies are not directing learning in the classroom as well. Republicans want to hold these programs to the highest standards of quality, accuracy and neutrality. This will only happen if funding is going to schools first, special interests are not shaping the education agenda, and there is a balanced presentation of information. In conclusion, this motion to recommit is a trio of commonsense ideas that keeps children at the forefront while maintaining high standards for science in the classroom. I urge my colleagues to adopt this forthwith motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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