Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. You can look at that and realize that the hard- earned taxpayer dollars that we are entrusted with to spend responsibly, and it was the collective wisdom of Congress over that period of time, to spend significantly greater money. You have an increase of nearly 90 percent in spending over that period of time on that chart; and, in fact, little to no change in the achievement of the students in both the areas of math and reading. That is not to say that kids can't improve. But I think it is to say that the amount of money, it is clearly documented, that the amount of money in and of itself as being a predictor of student achievement just doesn't exist. That is study after study after study. But I want to spend just a few more moments, because when you think back to your school days, you always were a little anxious about getting your report card. You weren't quite certain whether or not that teacher was going to recognize the wonderful work you had done that would boost you into that next level. But I thought it would be helpful to give a report card on No Child Left Behind, the last 5 years of the authorization. So I searched around to find an objective report card, and I found the Heritage Foundation, which is a wonderful group of independent thinkers, objective thinkers, not necessarily Republican thinkers by any means, but objective thinkers; and they came up with kind of tracking in four or five different areas. I thought it might be helpful to share with my colleagues tonight a couple areas that they graded as it related to No Child Left Behind, or the reauthorization of the ESEA from 2002 to 2007. One of the things that they looked at was one of the goals that was cited was to constrain this remarkable Federal spending. As we have discussed, of course, spending increased by $23.5 billion over 2001 to 2007, a significant increase, an increase that is well documented on the graphs here. So they gave the constraint of Federal spending an F. That is failing on constraining Federal spending. What about streamlining bureaucracy and decreasing red tape, one of the things that we always tout as the latest and the greatest for every Federal program; it is going to streamline the bureaucracy and decrease the red tape. Certainly that is one of the areas that teachers that I talk to back home have the greatest objection to, that it has increased their paperwork and increased their red tape. In fact, another objective organization, the Office of Management and Budget, has determined that the annual paperwork burden on State and local communities has been 7 million hours, a cost of at least $140 million to the local and State communities in the area of education. So streamlining bureaucracy and red tape, what is the grade? It is another F, a failure. What about maintaining meaningful State testing? It is not that States haven't tried for decades to increase the performance of the children entrusted to them in the public education system. Many of the States have adopted all sorts of testing; and, in fact, what No Child Left Behind has done is either duplicated or usurped the ability of States to maintain their meaningful testing. So Heritage was relatively kind and gave us, the Federal Government, a C as it related to that. Finally, the area that I hear the most about, restoring State and local control. All of us know that local teachers and local communities and local administrators and certainly parents know best the kinds of activities that will allow one child and another, all children, the opportunity to achieve and reach their greatest potential. And restoring State and local control, what happened with No Child Left Behind, that is another F. So we can all agree that we ought to increase student achievement. We all believe that ought to occur. I would just implore my colleagues and respectfully request that we look at the history. Look at the charts. Look at the demonstration. Look at the history that has gone on in terms of Federal spending and student achievement. I would ask my colleagues to look at the history over the last 5 years of what the increase in regulation and requirements from the Federal Government has been to the local communities. Have they increased student achievement? I think an objective assessment of the situation would say that in fact they have not. I would ask my colleagues to look at whether or not removing State and local control over the issue of education has assisted in increasing student achievement, and I would suggest candidly it has not. That is why I am so proud to stand with my colleague from New Jersey tonight who has penned the LEARN Act, the bill that would allow States to opt out of this insanity, opt out of this merry-go-round that apparently by evidence tonight demonstrates that the Federal Government and its role in elementary and secondary education has not been necessarily productive in increasing student achievement, and to allow the States and local communities to recognize and appreciate that they know best how to get our young people to a level of accountability. All of us want them to achieve. I so strongly support my colleague from New Jersey in his efforts to make it so his State and my State and other States across this Nation, if they so desire, can opt out of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act so that those moneys can go back home to be utilized in the most efficient and effective manner to make it so our children can achieve.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my good friend from California for his wonderful and diligent work in this area, an area that we ought to have had a bipartisan bill. Madam Speaker, this bill is interesting and a curious work product of this House, one that I believe will be troubling to the Nation. What the Democrat majority has done is brought together the ingredients in a huge recipe for bad policy. So far, the new majority has kept the Republicans out of the process. Not a single House Republican, not one, was involved in the conference committee report or signed it. They have manipulated the recommendations of the administration to serve their ulterior motives, and they have disregarded input from key stakeholders and students and parents across this Nation. As a result of this recipe, the Congress has a final product that distorts the reconciliation and puts at risk expanding college access for students over the long term. We predicted, during the debate of the budget resolution, that the ``savings,'' ``savings'' in the reconciliation process were a fig leaf. Today the House is debating a bill which spends nearly $22 billion more in new entitlement spending just to get $750 million in savings. That's fuzzy math. Fact, entitlement growth, automatic spending is unsustainable and consumes more than half the entire Federal budget. It is also fact that if left on autopilot, by 2030 that automatic spending will consume the entire Federal budget. Without true spending reform, entitlements will crowd out all other spending. This bill, H.R. 2669, makes a major mistake of magnifying the problem by adding new entitlement monies. In fact, the conference agreement dedicates $1.17 billion to new automatic spending programs. At a time of run-away spending, the Democratic majority is intent on creating these massive new spending programs instead of dedicating the savings to deficit reduction. Such an approach continues us down the path to fiscal irresponsibility. Now, all of that might be okay if, if the changes offered would truly help students, but they don't. The Democrats have decided to favor a Washington-run bureaucrat student-lending system rather than a flexible, responsive free market alternative. This bill cuts over $22 billion in the Federal Family Education Loan program. The only conceivable reason to do that is to paralyze it and put it at a disadvantage to the direct government loan program or Washington-run program. This is unfortunate because that Federal Family Education Loan program has proven to be far more successful, does a better job of providing student loans. This is reflected in the fact that for nearly every government loan, there are four loans by the Federal Family Education Loan. In the end, Democrats want to cripple this program because they favor a centralized governmental approach to this Nation's challenges. All these drastic cuts do is put at risk the need for students and the access that they will have to a college education over time. For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the bill on the floor.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this commonsense amendment to H.R. 2786. This bill, as you know, would reauthorize the Native American and Native Hawaiian Block Grant programs, and the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that appropriation of the amounts necessary to implement this bill will cost approximately $2.2 billion over the 2008- 2012 period of this reauthorization. This bill originally was authorized, or passed, in 1996 and then reauthorized in 2002, and the reorganization of the system of Federal housing assistance to Native Americans was accomplished by eliminating several separate programs of assistance and replacing them with a single block grant program. In addition to simplifying the process of providing housing assistance, the purpose of this is to provide Federal assistance for Indian tribes in a manner that recognizes the right of Indian self- determination and tribal self-governance. Now, Mr. Chairman, equally as important I would suggest is fiscal responsibility. We've all come back from a month in our districts, working and listening to our constituents, and I heard repeatedly from my constituents that they continue to appeal to us to be more fiscally responsible. Many of my colleagues on our side of the aisle have attempted to offer amendments and bring about that kind of fiscal responsibility. This is another one of those amendments. This amendment will not prohibit funds from being spent on this program, but it will protect taxpayers by applying the principle of pay-as-you-go to the spending that's authorized by this legislation by requiring that any new spending as a result of this legislation must have a specific offset before the legislation can take effect. Now, if there is to be a taxpayer subsidy, as good stewards of the American hard-earned taxpayer money, we should provide a specific spending decrease to offset any new spending that would be required by this legislation. To be sure, this is important legislation, and I want to commend Congressman Pearce for his hard work on the legislation, ensuring its consideration on the floor. It's a testament to his hard work that he does every day for his constituents back home. But fiscal responsibility isn't something that we ought to just trump out during campaigns. We heard a lot about it during the last campaign; but I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is way past time that we act in this responsible manner. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment for PAYGO for authorization of the appropriations that will come as a result of this bill, and I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. This language was taken directly from your side's PAYGO language in the rule. So what I'm attempting to do is to try to provide individuals with something which they hopefully have seen before. This is the PAYGO language from the PAYGO rules.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding again. The amendment's pretty simple. It says that if we're going to spend more money out of this Congress for this appropriation that we ought to find money elsewhere to make certain that we're not taking more hard- earned taxpayer money----

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. That's exactly what it says, precisely what it says.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. No, I have no plan to offer that at this time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Iowa and I appreciate his support. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the vigor with which the other side opposes this amendment, because I think it sets up a clear distinction. The vigor and the enthusiasm with which they oppose responsible spending is clear. It's clear to us. It will be made clear to the American people repeatedly over the next number of months, and then the American people will decide. The enthusiasm that the gentleman has voiced in opposition to this, which clearly states that if any new spending, any increase in spending occurs because of this bill, then there must be offsets elsewhere. The gentleman clearly knows, the gentleman clearly knows the rules are germane. This requires that that's the way this be written, clearly. We can start at this point being fiscally responsible, or we can never start. But it's clear that what we desire and my colleagues desire to do is to begin that fiscally responsible move now and support this amendment.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. This is truly a day of great sadness for our conference, for this House, for the State of Ohio and, yes, Mr. Speaker, for our Nation. Though only in my second term in Congress, I came to know and appreciate Paul Gillmor, serving on one of his committees, Financial Services, and I came to appreciate him for many different and wonderful attributes. He had a warm and gentle temperament, a calm and friendly demeanor, a measured and thoughtful reason, a respected and a respectful legislator. These and so many other attributes shall be missed by one and all. I join my colleagues in extending our thoughts and our prayers to his constituents, to his friends, and most, to his family. We are truly a better Nation because of the service of Paul Gillmor. May God rest his soul.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that that was the letter that was requested to be inserted earlier, and the gentleman himself objected to it.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I have in my hand here a letter from the American Association for Homecare, Coalition for Pulmonary Fibrosis, the COPD Alert, the Council for Quality Respiratory Care, and the National Emphysema/COPD Association asking us not to vote for this bill that would enact cuts in their programs. As a physician, I understand the negative consequences of greater governmental involvement in health care. This bill will cut Medicare benefits. It will tax every single American with private health insurance. Now, why would they do this? Why would they pass a bill like this? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is because they can. But their motives are laid bare. Their motives are laid today. The true desire of those on the left is to gradually and enticingly move all Americans to Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care. Read the bill. Read the bill. It's right there. It's not what we ought to be doing. It's not what Americans want. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, here's the bill. Here is the health care bill folks have been talking about. Do you know what's in it? Most Members don't. Under the guise of children's health, there is a hidden tax on every single private health insurance policy in the Nation. Every one. Why? Because the desire of those on the left to gradually move every American to Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care is so strong they will stop at nothing. Their desire is to end the ability of patients and their doctors to make independent choices and decisions. As a physician, I know how detrimental the government can be to quality health care. In addition, this bill will end the choices and freedoms that 8 million seniors currently have on Medicare Advantage, cutting Medicare to 8 million seniors. Now, the left will pass this bill today because they can under a gag rule. That doesn't make the process or the policy correct. This is not what the American people want nor what they deserve, and they are watching.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I wonder if my friend is aware of the fact that the letter she is submitting to the Record or asking the House to allow for submission into the Record has significant conflicts. Madam Speaker, I am not certain that she recognizes that, in fact, AARP, which is the letter that she provided earlier for the record, in fact, AARP is in competition for health insurance policies with Medicare Advantage. That's the dirty little secret that nobody wants you to appreciate. So when these letters are put in the Record, it may seem that there are wonderful endorsements out there for this program. However, in fact, that isn't the case. It isn't the case with the AARP letter that was provided, and it likely isn't the case with the letter that has been provided right here. So I think it's incumbent upon all Members of this Chamber to appreciate where people stand, and where we stand is to make certain that Medicare recipients receive the Medicare policies that they currently have. Under Medicare Advantage, we believe that those individuals ought to be able to continue to receive those policies. In fact, what the other side is trying to do is to cut Medicare. That's exactly what they are doing, is cutting Medicare. They are doing it under the guise of covering children. That's not we believe is appropriate. We believe that individuals ought to have the flexibility and choices in their health care policies, in their Medicare policies.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Does the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate my friend yielding. Isn't it true that the reason you are concerned about this bill is because of the amount of spending in this bill puts in jeopardy health care for our seniors?