Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the chairman. I think this has been a healthy presentation from this side. The muted response from the other side is understandable. When you have instituted in your budget the largest tax increase in the history of the Nation, when you continue to increase the spending at a rate that is greater than inflation, greater than the increase in population for our Nation, then the response, I suspect, ought to be muted. My good friend from Ohio has said he will close, and I look forward to that response. I am reminded, prior to him standing up, though, that a wise individual once said: When you don't have the facts on your side, then you ought to raise your voice, and you ought to raise it very loud. And so I ask my colleagues to pay attention to what is about to come. I do want to recognize what my good friend from Texas said, though, and that was talk about Alice in Wonderland. I have dubbed it Orwellian democracy that we are involved in here. My friend from Massachusetts talks about the railing against the Republicans who spent too much and increased the debt. And so what is the response to that? It is to increase it even further, spend more money. They use the grand line of we are interested in investing in the American family. Well, Mr. Chairman, the American families all across this Nation know that when the majority party, when the Democrats talk about investing, what they mean is to hold on to your wallet because that means that taxes are coming; and the budget indeed includes the largest tax increase in the history of the Nation. This bill, this bill in and of itself, a $3.2 billion increase, 6.7 percent over last year. Why is it that we can't just decrease that by 1 percent? By 1 percent. Is that too much to ask? Mr. Chairman, I would urge you, if you have any questions about what kinds of money we are talking about, it is H.R. 3074, you can go on line. You can find this bill on line, and you can go to any line item. And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, when you do that, that if you take any specific line item and you say to yourself, is it possible that they might be able to get by with 1 percent less, 1 penny out of a dollar, $1 out of every $100? Again, that is what American families all across this Nation do. When they find themselves in a little bit of financial difficulty, when they find that their wallet is a little pinched, what they do is they look at their expenditures and they say, we are going to have to cut back. And that is exactly what we, the American family, want to do is to cut back. That is what this is. This is a sincere and a commonsense attempt to try to begin fiscal responsibility here in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair, and I thank the leadership for the opportunity to bring this amendment forward. This amendment is a very simple amendment. It's an amendment that has come to be known as the Hefley amendment, or at least came to be known as the Hefley amendment, a former Member of this body who offered an amendment to decrease appropriations bills by 1 percent in an effort to begin fiscal responsibility. And it's my privilege to bring these amendments to the floor again in an effort to take that first step, take that first step to begin fiscal responsibility in this Chamber. This is a good debate. It's a good debate that we have when we talk about how to spend hard-earned taxpayer money, because, Mr. Chairman, as you know, oftentimes in this Chamber, in fact, we've heard on some of these appropriations bills Members talk about their money, about my money. And it's always important that we remember whose money it is. It's not government money. It's not our money. It's the money of the hardworking American taxpayer. So this amendment is very simple. It simply says that we ought to reduce by 1 percent the amount of money being spent in this particular appropriations bill. And to be clear, that is still a significant increase in spending over last year, but it's an attempt to begin fiscal responsibility. One of the numbers, the numbers are that last year this portion of the appropriations bill spent $47.5 billion. The President requested an increase to $47.9 billion for this next fiscal year, and the committee itself brings forward a bill that will spend $50.7 billion. That's $3.2 billion more than last year. So this amendment would say, well, we ought not spend $50.7 billion. Let's see if we can't get a little fiscal responsibility and instead spend $50.2 billion. Again, it's not as far as many of us think we ought to go in an effort to try to be more responsible with spending the hard-earned American taxpayers' money, but it is a step in the right direction. It is a step along the line of fiscal responsibility. It is a recognition. It would be the beginning of a recognition that this is not Congress's money, that it is the money of the hardworking American taxpayer. On many of these bills we seem to get a few more votes each time. I'm hopeful that at some point this House will make a statement, that this House will make a statement and say, yes, we do believe that, in fact, moving forward under the banner of fiscal responsibility dictates that we respect the hard work of the American taxpayer and, in fact, accept one of these amendments as we move forward. So with that I think it's a commonsense amendment. It's a problem- solving amendment. It's an amendment that speaks to what the American family would do when they have some fiscal challenges, and that is to overall reduce the amount of money that they spend. So, with that, I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire whether it's the intention of the gentleman from Ohio to close when he speaks.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for purposes of setting the record straight.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Texas, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would urge my colleagues to take a clear look at this commonsense amendment. This is an amendment that addresses an area of the bill. The underlying bill itself, this appropriations bill, allows for money to be placed in a slush fund that would be used essentially for political purposes. So, Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this commonsense amendment that would prohibit the FHA from diverting money to help fund a ``housing trust fund.'' This name for this is actually part of the Orwellian democracy that I've talked about extensively with this new majority. Because it really isn't a housing trust fund. It is a fund that is wholly unnecessary and wholly political. This amendment would shield middle-class homeowners from the new majority's desire to fund a new expansion of government-built housing; again, with completely political paybacks. HUD already has a number of programs, a number of programs, Market-to-Market, the American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which are aimed at preserving existing affordable housing and expanding affordable homeownership. The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, also administered by Housing and Urban Development, is the largest Federal block grant to State and local governments. It is dedicated exclusively to creating new affordable housing to low-income households. The new Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is pending funding in this bill derives part of its funding from skimming money, and a lot of it, from FHA mortgage premiums and creates another mechanism which forces the Federal Government into the home-building business and with political nuances to it all. As Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner of the United States, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Mr. Brian Montgomery, pointed out at a recent hearing before the House Committee on Financial Services, FHA receipts are already credited toward HUD appropriations. As a result, any new program, any new program, like this one, takes that revenue at the expense of the previous HUD programs that I mentioned earlier. As Mr. Montgomery testified, we will be ``robbing Peter to pay Paul.'' Now, why would we do this? Well, we would do it, I guess, because the majority party desires to have political direction over that money. Mr. Chairman, is there any doubt that the provisions of the FHA modernization bill will create an incentive for FHA to charge higher premiums than is safe or prudent given that incentive? Pressure to hit certain revenue targets will cause a dramatic departure from today's environment where the FHA is able to work to ensure that low-income and first-time homebuyers are being charged the lowest possible premium. It will be those borrowers who pay the cost of this new housing trust fund, those least able to afford it, and likely those least able to desire any activity that smacks of the political cronyism that this slush fund would bring about. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to take a serious and prudent look at this commonsense amendment. I believe it is something that the entire House should be able to embrace. I hope they will support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those comments. I understand the lack of desire on the part of the appropriators to get into the business of the authorizers, but that is the way the system works here. One committee will authorize, and then the Appropriations Committee comes along and determines whether or not there ought to be money. What this amendment says is that this House ought to say no, we ought not put money into a slush fund, into a housing slush fund that actually takes money away from programs that are demonstrated to have had excellent results, Market-to-Market, the American Dream Downpayment Initiative, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This slush fund will take money away from those programs that have been very, very helpful to individuals across this Nation, low-income individuals across this Nation, who are trying to get into a home. What it will do is substitute it with a slush fund that will be used for political purposes. There is no doubt about it. So it doesn't surprise me, I guess, that the majority party would oppose this amendment. But I would ask my colleagues on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, to clearly look at this amendment and appreciate that none of us, none of us, ought be using this kind of money, the kind of money that allows low-income Americans to get into their home and have the American dream, realize the American dream, but to do so with political slush fund money. It just isn't appropriate. It is just not right. So I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at this amendment and support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my leadership on the Republican side of the aisle for allowing me to address the House this evening. It is always an honor to come before the House of Representatives and to discuss issues of importance to this Chamber, to this Capitol and to the Nation. This is a truncated version of the Official Truth Squad because of the hour of the evening. The Official Truth Squad is a group of individuals who come to the floor of the House and try to shed a little light, try to shed a little truth, if you will, on the deliberations going on here in our Nation's Capital and hopefully bring a perspective that will allow Members of the House and this Chamber and men and women across our Nation to be able to gain a little greater perspective on exactly what is going on here in Washington as we struggle with the challenges that we have facing the issues that we have in our Nation that demand so much of our attention and demand, frankly, a greater level of cooperation than is frequently seen here in Washington. It is one of the things that I strive, along with my colleagues, try to bring about, and that is a greater sense of urgency to solve the challenges that we have, and to address honestly and openly and truthfully the issues we have before us. We have one special quote that I like to quote that I think kind of puts it all into perspective, especially when you are talking about issues that are so complex in Washington. It comes from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He used to say everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. So often here in Washington, people want their opinions to be facts. It is one of the items or issues that the Official Truth Squad attempts to address, and that is trying to talk about facts, trying to bring facts to the table as it relates to any particular issue. Tonight we are going to talk about at least one issue that is in great need of facts. Madam Speaker, we are in appropriation season. During this period of time, the House works on its multiple appropriations bills and tries to determine exactly how we as a Nation ought to set priorities from an appropriations or a spending standpoint, what level of spending ought to go into the various programs of the Federal Government. And so often, and we just heard it this evening, many people come to the floor and they say, if we just had more money, if we just had more money for this program or that program, that would solve the problem. And so often it is not money that is needed for programs, especially out across our Nation, because what is needed most often is to free up the wonderful enthusiasm of the American people and the wonderful ingenuity of the American people. What happens is along with the money that comes from Washington comes rules and regulations and strings and stipulations, and makes it that those individuals who are trying as hard as they can to make ends meet and improve their communities and make certain that they are providing for their families, so often what Washington does is ties their hands behind their back and makes it so they are not able to realize the kinds of dreams that they would otherwise be able to realize. We cite often the Golden Rule. You know what that is. Most folks know what that is, but the Golden Rule of Washington is not what most people across this Nation know. The Golden Rule across this Nation is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But the Golden Rule here in Washington is he who has the gold makes the rules. That is especially true during appropriation season because we put all kinds of strings attached to the money that the Federal Government spends. We often forget, as I am fond of reminding my friends here in the House, of whose money it is, because it is not government's money, it is the people's money. It is hard-earned American taxpayer money. We have had individuals come even to this well and say, ``Keep your hands off my money.'' My money. It is phenomenal when you hear that, when I go home to the Sixth Congressional District in Georgia, and my constituents ask incredibly insightful questions about that kind of mindset that exists here in Washington. ``How can politicians believe it is their money?'' This is so important as we are in this appropriation season and as we determine exactly how to spend that hard-earned taxpayer money, and we ought to do it more responsibly, I would suggest, Madam Speaker. I want to talk tonight about an issue that is near and dear to my heart, and to the heart and well-being of every single American, and that is the issue of health care. Before I came to this body, I was a practicing physician. I was an orthopedic surgeon and practiced for over 20 years in the Atlanta area. One of the things that drove me into politics or had me stand up and volunteer to get into politics was the recognition and the appreciation that year after year after year would go by as I tried the best I could to care for my patients and worked with my colleagues to provide the best and highest quality of health care we could provide, and year after year, and month after month, and day after day each of us appreciated that there were more individuals in our State capital and in this Capital right here who were making decisions about health care that affected very directly what I could do for and with my patients than anybody I ever met in medical school and anybody I met in residency and training as I was training to become an orthopedic surgeon. That was true for every specialty that I talked to, every single colleague. If you talk to your doctor, Madam Speaker, or if the Members of Congress would speak to their physicians and to their neighbors, they would appreciate readily that there are so many rules and regulations that are coming from Washington and from State capitals around this Nation that tie the hands, that make it more difficult, not easier, more difficult for physicians and other health care providers to be able to take care of patients. And that's wrong. That is wrong because what it means is we have a lesser quality of health care system than we would otherwise have if the government weren't involved in the way that it is. And there are all sorts of programs that you can talk about that would lend truth and credibility to that statement, but I want to talk about one specifically this evening that is going to get a lot of discussion, Madam Speaker, here over the next week or two and maybe number of months as we move forward in Washington, and that is the program known as SCHIP, or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is a program that was begun 10 years ago. It was part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It was a program that had wonderful goals. The goals were, specifically, there was a recognition that low-income individuals who weren't eligible for Medicaid, they made too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, but they didn't make enough money to be able to afford health insurance for their families, those individuals ought to be able to have some sort of assistance provided by States and the Federal Government in a complex formula that would allow those families to be able to have health insurance for their children. So hence the name State Children's Health Insurance Program. And it was a laudable goal, without any doubt. And it was passed by a significant majority, and the goal was to increase the enrollment of children who were below 200 percent of the poverty level. That is what was selected as the limit at the time. Over the last 10 years what happened, however, is a distortion, a significant distortion, of the program so that it covered not just children up to 200 percent of the poverty level, but in some States covered up to 350 percent of the poverty level, and it covered not just children. The State Health Insurance Program covered hundreds of thousands of adults. So like other government programs, it grew. Government programs in the area of health don't just grow, as I started this conversation talking about, they insert themselves in terms of rules and regulations into the process and make it extremely difficult for those who are charged with the administration of the program, charged with caring for patients in this instance, to be able to care appropriately for them. So what we saw between 1998 when the State Children's Health Insurance Program was instituted and became effective, at that time there were about 28 percent of the children of this Nation on some sort of government-run health care. In 2005, that number had grown to 45 percent. It is a little more than that right now, but about 45 percent. The proposal that will be on the floor of the House or certainly in Committee of the House is to move it so that in a relatively short period of time, another 5 years, we will have 70 to 75 percent of children on government-run health care. We will talk a little bit more about the consequences of that and why many of us believe that is the wrong direction to head, because most of us, most people, most Americans, I believe, are not interested in having a Washington-controlled, bureaucratic medical model be the one that is making those kinds of personal health care decisions for themselves and their families, and especially for their children. That is what we are going to talk a little bit about tonight. I am so pleased to be joined by one of my good friends and colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who has great insights into both fiscal responsibility issues and issues where government tends to intervene in ways that most of us would desire that it not. I am happy to have the gentleman join us this evening, and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate your comments in pointing out a number of different areas where the government has been intimately involved in health care issues specifically and ones where most individuals across this Nation I believe, Madam Speaker, have questions about the advisability of governmental involvement and the effectiveness of governmental involvement. We're pleased to be joined by another good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, who has been chair and now is ranking member of the Budget Committee, an individual who has great perspective on both fiscal responsibility and the issue of health care as a member of the Ways and Means Committee. We are pleased to have Mr. Ryan join us this evening and I'm happy to yield to him.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for his comments and really succinct presentation of the issue of health care and the philosophical difference between the two parties, philosophical difference between the majority party and our party at this point. The majority party believes that Washington-controlled bureaucratic medicine, bureaucratic health care is exactly what the country needs, and we don't believe that. We believe firmly in patient-centered health care and patient-centered decisions as it relates to health care. So I thank you very much, and you point out as clearly as anybody could ever do the philosophy on that side of the aisle, once again, that is, if we just give it more money, give it more money, it will somehow miraculously improve. You know as well as anybody as the ranking member on the Budget Committee that when the estimates are a certain amount, it's never that amount. So if $50 billion is the estimate for the first 5 years and $100 billion for the 10-year period of time, it will never remain at that level. When folks across America hear that kind of comment, they just better say I better hold on to my wallet. I'm pleased to yield to you once again if you have any other comments.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you ever so much for your comments and, once again, succinctly pointing out the rationale for why it doesn't make sense for Washington to be controlling health care. And sometimes I get the question as a physician, what does it mean specifically? What kind of issues would the government insert themselves into? If I think back on personal experience that I have, there are a number of issues where Washington and governments insert themselves into health care. The reason that it sometimes isn't easy to see is because patients don't often see it. I worked for a period of time in a veterans hospital in Atlanta, and every quarter there were a certain number of joint replacements that were allowed to be done at the hospital. When we got to the end of that number, even though it wasn't the end of the quarter, there were more patients that needed joint replacements, we couldn't do them. We weren't able to do them because the resources weren't there to be able to fund them. Now, the patients that didn't get their joint replacement in May or June because they were rescheduled to July didn't know that the reason they didn't get their joint replacement in May or June wasn't because there wasn't anybody to do it, or there weren't any prostheses to implant, or the nurses weren't there, or the operating rooms weren't functioning, no. They didn't know that the reason they weren't getting it is because the Federal Government wouldn't pay for it. That was the reason. So, the government inserts itself in so many ways into the practice of medicine. Medicaid programs are a classic example. Medicaid programs across this Nation, which are government-run health care for lower- income individuals, the vast majority of States have formularies for drug prescription plans in Medicaid, which means that the government is deciding which drugs are available for folks at the lower end of the economic spectrum. That's wrong. That's simply wrong. Now, there is a way to solve that without the heavy hammer of the government, because when the heavy hammer of the government comes in, what happens is that they just put more restrictions on, or they make a change, and for 2 months it's the right change to make. But government isn't nimble, it isn't flexible, it can't change easily. Even if it made the right decision at one point in relatively short order, it would be the wrong decision, because science moves on, medicine moves on, health care moves on. There is no way the government can catch up, which is why the importance of having patient-centered decisions, patients and their families making decisions in concert with the consultation with the physician, is so incredibly important. I yield to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for pointing out the shortfall of Federal Government rules, because they can't ever catch up. My State, Georgia, was one of those States that spent too much. It spent too much, we would argue, in Georgia, because we were too efficient at signing up children in the program. Because the formula wasn't flexible, wasn't nimble enough, couldn't accommodate for a State that overperformed, if you will, then it wasn't able to be able to get the match that it was promised. Whether or not that should have happened in the first place is a different question. But the fundamental challenge that we see in all of this is that the Federal Government can't respond, and it can't respond in so many different ways. But what we see with this chart here that my colleagues know very, very well, and that is that there are all sorts of children out there right now across our Nation that are covered by private insurance. What happens when the Federal Government and the States get involved and they say, let's put this carrot in front of you; let's entice you to come and join government-run health care? What happens? The fact of the matter is that there is a crowd-out phenomenon, that individual families who currently have private insurance, either they or their employer looks at the program and they say, well, we could save that money by having you enroll your children in government-run health care.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. That's exactly right. That's what we saw with the previous program. It happens every time when you have a government program that potentially can supplant the private program. In 1998, 28 percent of the children in our Nation were covered by some sort of government-run health insurance. In 2005, 45 percent. This is a combination of SCHIP and Medicaid. Now, the problem is that when you look at the number of children that are covered by private health insurance in our Nation, up to 200 percent, 50 percent of them are already covered by private health insurance. If you go up to 300 percent, which is what the Senate proposes, 70 percent of the children in America whose families have incomes less than 300 percent have some form of private health insurance.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. At 400 percent it's nearly 90 percent.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. That's exactly right. That is the crux of the matter. If everything else were equal in the system, if it were to allow for the same kind of ability for patients and families and doctors to make decisions, that might be one thing. But as we have talked about, and as everybody across this Nation knows, that's not the case. When you have government get involved in the provision of health care, government is going to make decisions about where you can be treated, who can treat you and what kind of treatment you can have. That's where the personal health care decisions go away from the individual. I don't believe, and I know you don't believe, that that's what the American people want. It's up to you.