Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I include at this point in the Record excerpts of a memo written to Bill Dauster of the Senate Finance Committee from Ed Kleinbard, Chief of Staff at the Senate Joint Committee on Taxation. Conclusion While we recognize that colorable arguments can be made in support of the contrary conclusion, we believe that Rule XLIV's disclosure requirement for limited tax benefits is applicable to Section 301. Mr. Speaker, this new majority is all politics all the time. Now, the Speaker gave seven reasons to vote for this bill. Funny, she didn't include the tax boondoggle for trial lawyers. That is right, a tax break for trial lawyers. The bill allows plaintiffs' trial lawyers to take deductions for the payment of contingency fees. I ask you, under current economic conditions, should we be using the Tax Code to give the plaintiffs bar possible financial incentives to bring more and costlier lawsuits against American business? Second, by definition, in the rules of this House this bill contains earmarks and pork. The restructuring of the New York Liberty Zone tax credits provide pork, a limited tax benefit of over $1 billion to New York City. Pork for powerful Members of Congress. Pork for trial lawyers. Mr. Speaker, two good reasons to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my good friend from Texas for organizing this period of time and for highlighting what Americans all across this land are concerned about, and that is the culture of spending that you talked about, and you mentioned these wonderful promises that were going to be enacted with this new majority. And there is a culture of spending that continues and persists, but there's also a culture of hypocrisy. It's saying one thing and doing another. It's saying one thing on the campaign trail, and then when you come to Washington, you do something exactly the opposite. And when I go home to the Sixth District of Georgia, that's what I hear about. I hear people say, ``Why on Earth can't people live up to their word? Why can't they do what they said they were going to do when they ran for office?'' And the spending is one of the things that gets them so terribly irritated and so terribly annoyed because they see it. My good friend from Texas talked about selling a piece of the Green Mountains in Vermont to a specific entity. That's using hard-earned taxpayer money to benefit one entity. Madam Speaker, that's wrong. That's not the way we ought to do business here. In fact, it hasn't been the way forever. There are some wonderful quotes about pork barrel spending, about earmarks. One from Thomas Jefferson, who said that, in essence, if we allow the process of earmarking, pork barrel spending, to go forward, ``it will be a scene of eternal scramble among the Members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are the meanest,'' which is a phenomenal quote when you think about it, Madam Speaker, because what we have now are individuals in this House of Representatives who have been so successful in getting earmarks, getting pork barrel money back to their districts that we now have defense contractors in this Nation who are moving their headquarters to one specific district in Pennsylvania because they believe it will benefit them to a greater degree in getting contracts from the Federal Government. A phenomenal thing. Madam Speaker, this process is corrupt and it's corrupting. When I talk to folks back home about why it's imperative that we stop the earmarking process, something that I believe we must do, and I tell them that it's corrupt and it's corrupting, that didn't have the resonance until I put a face on that, a face that we have seen in this House by so many individuals but it's most championed in a corrupt way by a gentleman by the name of Duke Cunningham. Duke Cunningham now sits in a Federal prison in California. He does so because he earmarked money for a personal company, that benefited one company, one company, and then they, in turn, benefited him politically. And it's happened on both sides of the aisle. But it's a process that's corrupt and it's corrupting. Now, why do I mention Duke Cunningham by name, Madam Speaker? I do so because when he came to Washington, he was the individual who was the inspiration for the ``Top Gun'' movie. He was a war hero. He was an American hero. And what happened with the process of Washington was that the corruption and the corrupting influence of Washington spending that is being perpetrated and continued and expanded by this majority, that process corrupted that individual. Now, there were certainly some personal characteristic flaws, but the process itself that remains in place right now and, in fact, is being championed by this majority is a corrupt process and it's corrupting. Madam Speaker, I would suggest to all of my colleagues that this is a process and a system that has got to end. It's got to end. The American people want fiscal responsibility. They want to make certain that they have financial security and peace of mind. That peace of mind will never come when we have a process that is this sordid, that is this offensive to the American people. So I want to commend my good friend from Texas for his remarkable leadership in this and so many areas in Congress, a conservative stalwart, an individual who understands the importance of being fiscally responsible at the Federal level and the consequences of not being fiscally responsible, which means that middle class Americans all across this Nation are having more of their hard-earned taxpayer money taken out of their back pocket, out of their wallet, and out of their purses in order to fund the reckless spending, irresponsible spending, culture of spending, and culture of hypocrisy that this majority has brought to Washington. So I want to commend my good friend from Texas, and thank you so very much for the opportunity and the privilege of joining you tonight. I thank you for your leadership in this area.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to welcome to Washington, DC, a special group of World War II veterans from Georgia's Sixth District. These proud patriots are here for one remarkable day as part of the Honor Flight Program. Thanks to the generosity of the Roswell Rotary Club, these men and women will have the opportunity to visit the stirring World War II memorial built in their honor and to pay their respect to fallen comrades at Arlington National Cemetery. As young Americans, these proud patriots showed courage and compassion, answering the call to serve at a time of great need. Through amazing sacrifice, they are responsible for the preservation of our treasured American way of life. Our community is extremely proud to be home to so many of the brave veterans who fought for freedom at a critical moment in our history. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Georgia's Sixth District, I offer our deepest appreciation. And I know that my colleagues will join me in welcoming our veterans to our Nation's capital and thanking them, these soldiers of the greatest generation, for their invaluable service.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Yes, unless anybody else would like time on my reservation, I will object.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I appreciate my colleague on the committee for attempting to clarify an issue which is, I think, significantly problematic. The issue of defining foreclosure time, and length, the particulars have always been the purview of the States. And I know that this amendment is an attempt to try to clarify that. In fact, I think it confounds it, and my concern about the unanimous consent request is that it doesn't make it clear still. So I have significant concerns about the amendment. I'm happy to yield to my friend from Ohio for any clarification that he might offer.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate those comments and I would agree. I think that all of us, many of us in the House, many certainly on this side of the aisle, want to retain the States' prerogative in the area of foreclosure. And I would suggest to the gentleman that his comment about that, and the discussion that's gone on on the unanimous consent request and the language therein, is something that ``they can live with.'' And I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this probably should have been dealt with in committee, and it might have been able to be clarified to a much greater degree. My concern remains.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There's a general sense, Mr. Speaker, that it's this bill or nothing, and that certainly isn't true. In fact, much has been done. As has been talked about, the FHA Secure program has created greater flexibility, helping hundreds of thousands stay in their homes. The Hope Now program has already helped 1.4 million individuals stay in their home, getting borrowers and lenders together. Loan limits have been increased, FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. The Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates. So the notion that the Federal Government has been unresponsive or slow to move is disingenuous and is repeated as fact solely as an excuse for the Democrats to continue outbidding each other on how much taxpayer funding they can spend or bail out imprudent borrowers who either bought too much house or lenders who were gladly willing to give them the money. So much has been done to date. We have also heard the chairman and others say that it's unlikely that this will cost $300 billion, that it will only be $2.4 or $2.7 billion. Well, then why doesn't the bill say that? It doesn't, Mr. Speaker, because the taxpayer will be on the hook for risky loans and the number may significantly rise, and that's because this bailout plan irresponsibly disregards borrowers' payment history and credit scores. Borrowers could have missed the majority of their monthly payments over the life of the loan; yet those borrowers would still be eligible for a government-backed mortgage, and taxpayers would be on the hook. Americans don't believe that's fair. There has also been discussion about the voluntary nature of this program. However, Federal Reserve Board Governor Randall Krozner said in our committee, ``If Congress decides to move down this road, then it should carefully consider the steps that should be taken to mitigate moral hazard, avoid adverse selection, and ensure that the financial interests of the taxpayer are adequately safeguarded.'' But if you listen to the chairman, this program isn't so voluntary. At that same hearing, the chairman said, ``If we were to get this approach adopted but we don't get much of a voluntary buy into this, then I have to say the response will probably be more regulation than people might like to see.'' He went on in an article quoted yesterday here in Washington to say, ``Meanwhile Chairman Frank has warned the mortgage industry that if it doesn't support something like this plan this year, it could be in for far more regulation next year.'' And that article went on: ``If after this we continue to get very little participation by servicers, I can guarantee you that the servicer industry will look very different . . . If after everything we do in this cooperative way falls short, then you are going to see legislation that puts some very real restrictions on the role of servicers.'' All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, this program doesn't sound so voluntary. It seems to me that the chairman's comments will exacerbate the moral hazard that the Federal Reserve Governor warned us against. In addition to the incentives, the chairman provides in his legislation for holders of mortgages, and they are real and enticing. We have actual threats of harmful regulation if they don't sign up dutifully for this program. That's not voluntary.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these threats do no favors to the American taxpayers across our country. The chairman is ensuring that we will get full and active participation in this program, populated by the riskiest of loans with enormous redefault rates and cost to the American taxpayer of up to $300 billion. Mr. Speaker, that's irresponsible and it's unwise.

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

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. Madam Speaker, the American people are fair people. And they expect their representatives to remain cognizant of and reflect that fairness in all actions. This House has moved from fairness, from deliberation and from proper recognition that would allow all Members the opportunity to actively represent their constituents to repeated tyranny of the Majority. Madam Speaker, there is a crisis of leadership by this majority. Every person in America has the right to have his or her voice heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor guaranteeing that the voices of the people are heard. Do you recognize those words, Madam Speaker? You should, for they are yours. And they're being violated. The minority possesses their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression. Recognize those words, Madam Speaker? You should. They were spoken by Thomas Jefferson and quoted by you and they are being violated. Why? It's either political expediency or a broken promise, one or the other, neither of which the American people support because they are a fair people. Madam Speaker, I submitted four thoughtful, substantive amendments which deserve the consideration of all 435 Members of this house. But they were denied that opportunity by this restrictive and unfair process. Madam Speaker, the American people understand that the rules aren't rules if you follow them only when you want to. Democrats promise to use fair and open rules for everything, but they're breaking rules and they're breaking promises to the American people. I urge the Speaker and the majority to be true to their word. Stop playing politics. Stop breaking promises. Allow the Members of this House to represent their constituents. What idea, what amendment is so scary that it couldn't be considered on this floor? I call on my colleagues not to destroy the very fiber of our representative democracy. Vote ``no'' on this rule so that we may have an open and fair debate. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my good friend from West Virginia for her leadership on this and for cogently bringing the debate forward and stating why this is the wrong bill at the wrong time. I am pleased to hear from my friend, though, from Minnesota who said that this was going to save America money. If we keep saving money at this rate, our deficit ought to disappear in short order, $15 billion chunks going out the door. I'm not sure how that math adds up, but I'm certain that it works somewhere. I want to commend my friend from Illinois for raising the point, as I know that the chairwoman acknowledged, and that is that there was no bidding process. There is really no accountability in this bill. Yes, there are plans that have to be proposed and submitted, but there's no oversight, there is no oversight of this money. Fifteen billion dollars could go to anybody, truly, who was a friend or a crony of any official in a State or a city. And we're going to trust the cities, as the chairman said, it was important that we trusted the cities. And I believe primarily that that is important that we do trust cities. If we trusted cities so much, though, then why would we not adopt an amendment that I proposed in committee that said that we ought to let the city do with the property what they deemed appropriate? But we haven't done that. We said oh, no, even if this facility, this housing facility is public housing and is absolutely dilapidated, you couldn't demolish it. Oh, no, we wouldn't want that to happen. We wouldn't want the city to make a decision that they could do something better with that property. In fact, this bill precludes that opportunity. I heard the chairwoman say that she wouldn't want to add an amendment that would provide for that accountability or that oversight because it might bog down getting the money to the cities. Well, Madam Chairman, I'll tell you what will bog down getting money to the cities, if people were really sincerely interested in that, and that's a veto. And this bill will be vetoed by the President of the United States for appropriate reasons because it is irresponsible and it is not appropriate to spend the kind of money that we're talking about without any oversight and without any accountability. Remember, $15 billion. I am constantly surprised, truly, by my friends on the other side of the aisle who don't seem to remember where this money comes from. Where does this money come from? It comes from hardworking Americans. And I would suggest, Madam Chairman, as my friend from Texas said, that hardworking Americans have a significant challenge right now in some aspects of their life, trying to make certain that they can afford the increase in gas prices under this majority, for the increasing prices for commodities under this majority. And so it would be appropriate that we remember that, and that we allow more Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. Now what is the solution? Well, I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that a couple of programs that are in place right now and are working diligently to make certain that people can stay in their homes, FHA Secure is a program that is administered by the Federal Housing Authority that provides greater flexibility for refinancing homes for hundreds of thousands of Americans. The Hope Now Alliance was a program that was put into place, a private sector cooperative effort that actually makes it so that struggling homeowners can get the kind of counseling and guidance to assist them to refinance their mortgages. More than 1.4 million Americans, Madam Chairman, have been shown the opportunity to be able to stay in their home. These are positive and productive programs that make it so that individuals can stay in their home. They aren't a bailout that is being proposed by the other side. They aren't taking $15 billion of hard- earned taxpayer money and saying, ``It's okay. We'll cover it. Don't worry about that. The American people's pocketbook is absolutely endless.'' This is a bad bill, wrong bill, wrong time. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Is it the role of the Speaker to make certain that the House is in order prior to Members speaking so that the gentleman can be heard? Isn't that appropriate?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I appreciate the offer of the gentleman, although I would suggest that if the unanimous consent request would also include the bill that has been included by Mr. Fossella in the Senate-passed FISA bill that we have, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that we have under a discharge petition, then I believe our side would be pleased to accept the unanimous consent.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would be happy to.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. We would be happy to accept the unanimous consent request if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will be allowed to come to the floor.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I object.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I'm so pleased to rise today to congratulate the State of Israel on its 60th anniversary as an independent and sovereign Nation. Our friends have realized this historic milestone in the face of innumerable challenges to their very existence. Constant threats of terrorism and attacks have not defeated the hopes and dreams of the Israeli people. And with remarkable restraint, and despite great odds, the State of Israel proudly stands and has secured the creation of a new and enduring Jewish society in their ancestral homeland. As a vibrant and strong democracy in the Middle East, Israel is a model for the region. A lack of natural resources has not prevented Israel from becoming home to one of the world's most dynamic economies. Its achievements in agriculture, solar energy, medical electronics and telecommunications have gained worldwide recognition. Each of these accomplishments can be directly attributed to Israel's greatest asset, her people. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to promote peace and stability for the people of Israel and all in the region, let us congratulate Israel on the occasion of her 60th anniversary and reaffirm our steadfast support for one of America's greatest allies.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I note as I come to the well here that it's now 2:49 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon, a time when across this Nation the folks who worked the day shift are getting ready to complete their work; the folks who are working the afternoon or evening shift are getting ready to head off to work or on their way to work; and the folks who work the midnight shift across the Nation are probably just rubbing their eyes as they wake up and begin their day or bedding down as they begin their rest before they get back at it again this evening. Where is the House of Representatives? Well, Madam Speaker, you look around the House of Representatives and they've gone home. They've all gone home. Now, why is that important? Well it's important, Madam Speaker, because I think it demonstrates another day demonstrating the crisis of leadership that we have in this House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, I come to the well today at this time to document that we are now 62 days into a unilateral disarmament of the United States of America as it relates to folks who want to do us harm all across this world, 62 days in which we have not had in place the Protect America Act, 62 days in which we have not had in place the appropriate rules and protections for communication companies to allow our United States Government to listen and intercept electronic communication between a foreign individual in a foreign land who wishes to do America harm and another foreign individual in a foreign land who wishes to do us harm. Did you get that, Madam Speaker? Non-U.S. citizen, not on U.S. soil, talking or communicating through electronic communication to another non-U.S. citizen, not on U.S. soil, about how to injure Americans either on the battlefield or here in our homeland. It's called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The bill was the Protect America Act. Sixty-two days ago, the leadership in this House of Representatives allowed that to expire. And why? For some reason, they believed that lawyers ought to be able to represent that foreign individual in a foreign land who want to do us harm with the same protections that you and I enjoy as American citizens. Madam Speaker, when I go home to the Sixth District of Georgia and I tell people about this, they shake their head and say, what on earth is going on? Where is the leadership? And I agree. Where is the leadership? Madam Speaker, there is a crisis of leadership in this House of Representatives, whether it is on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the Protect America Act, to allow our intelligence community the tools that they need to keep us protected. Whether it's on not doing anything positive about the price of gasoline all across this Nation, the only thing this House has done, this leadership has done is to increase the cost of domestic production of oil by increasing taxes. And who pays those ultimately? You got it, Madam Speaker. Americans. Whether it is allowing the free and fair trade agreement with Colombia to not come to the floor, to change the rules so that it can't come to the floor so that we kick in the teeth the only real friend that we have in South America, one of the few friends we have in South America, a democratically elected government; or whether it is, again, not allowing our intelligence community to listen to a terrorist on foreign soil, talking to another terrorist on foreign soil so that we know what the bad guys are going to do before they do it. Madam Speaker, that's a crisis of leadership.