Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Yes.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. No, it doesn't make any sense at all. It lays bare the true motive and the true philosophy, which, on the other side of the aisle, at least the true leadership who are pushing this legislation, their belief is that government knows better how to spend people's money than the people themselves. This stretches all the way into the area of health care, which, as you mentioned, are very personal, personal, health care decisions.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. You are absolutely right. And to give some credibility to that from a pie chart standpoint, these are the mandatory spending programs, and all of what you said happens unless we act. Unless we act as a Congress, all of these things happen. In 1995, those three programs were this yellow portion, about percent 48.7 percent of Federal spending. In 2005, about 53.4 percent. In relatively short order, 2017, 62.2 percent. And, as you mentioned, in 2030 the yellow portion of that will be the entire pie.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. You are absolutely right. And that is why you mentioned the significant increase in taxes that would be required, and that is if we don't do anything. That is why it is so imperative that we act, which is why it was so astounding to me that this new majority that came in with this ``new direction'' that they were going to take us on for our Nation. You know what happened when they had the opportunity to bring about some entitlement reform. What happened with the bill that they passed this year in their budget was no entitlement reform, in spite of the fact that we worked as diligently as we could back in 1997 with the Balanced Budget Act, about $130 billion of entitlement reform, and fought like the dickens, as you remember, in 2005 with the Deficit Reduction Act to get about $40 billion in entitlement reform. But this new majority comes in with the previous chart that we saw, increases in Social Security spending, increases in Medicare spending, increases in Medicaid spending, the prospect of another $100 billion entitlement with the SCHIP program if they have their way, and no reform. Can you imagine what that is going to do to our economy?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to thank you all for joining us tonight. I do want to close on a positive note, and that is that there is an alternative. And the alternative, as we talk about, is patient-centered health care. And patient-centered health care, as you know, puts the opportunity and the right and the privilege and the responsibility for decisionmaking among patients and their doctors, among families and their doctors. And the way to do that is to structure a tax system that allows individuals, incentivizes individuals to purchase health insurance, through whether it is tax deductions or tax credits, or advanceable refundable tax credits, through high-risk pools, through risk pools that allow people to pool together, making certain that individuals have the same kind of tax treatment for the purchase of health insurance as employers do now, as businesses do now, all sorts of wonderful ways to bring about the opportunity for folks to purchase health insurance. So it is not whether or not you have the current system or whether you march down the road to more Washington-controlled bureaucratic medicine. There is another way. And I know my good friend from Wisconsin has worked on this extensively on Ways and Means, and I would be pleased to hear your comments.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate your pointing out the issue of taxes, because there has also been work that has laid out the tax increase for the average citizen in every State across this Nation. And in Georgia, that average increase is $2,700 average tax increase when those tax increases go into effect if they are not changed. They were included in this budget that included no entitlement reform. In Wisconsin, the average number was $2,964. And New Jersey is a big winner, average increase $3,779.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman's comments from Wisconsin. And this is what we believe, patient-centered health care, and we going to work on putting some limbs and leaves on the tree of this over the next number of weeks and number of months, and make certain that the American people understand, Madam Speaker, that there is an alternative and it is a positive alternative. Because we live in a wondrous and a grand Nation, and a Nation where when individuals are allowed to encourage their own visions and their own dreams and their own entrepreneurship and their own work, that they can decide what is best for themselves, not government. Nobody across this Nation I believe is truly interested in having Washington-controlled bureaucratic medicine, yet that is the road that we are about to march down if this new majority has their way. Our alternative is patient-centered, patient-centered health care and allows individuals to make decisions with their families and with their physicians and with their health care providers. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make certain that as we move forward on this issue, that we move forward in a way that ensures that those decisions, those very personal decisions are able to be made in a very personal way without the government limiting care, without the government determining where you can be seen and who can see you and what kind of treatment you would receive. Madam Speaker, on that positive note and looking forward to patient- centered health care across this Nation, I want to once again thank the leadership for allowing us to spend this time on the floor. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues who are endeavoring to bring about some responsible spending here in Washington. I think this debate is helpful. It is helpful for the American people, because what it demonstrates is a difference in philosophy. Before I get to the specifics of my amendment, I want to mention, we have just heard a litany of projects that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee said would be cut with the previous amendment, and he went through: No Child Left Behind cut $1.2 billion; title I, $684 million; IDEA, $519 million; Pell Grants, $717 million cut. In fact, Mr. Chairman, what the American people understand is that the amendment that was just proposed would keep funding level. Not cut, level, which means that there wouldn't be any decreases over this current year of spending; there would be the same amount of money. It is what Americans do every year when they have a difficult challenge financially. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we have a difficult challenge financially this year in our Nation. And, consequently, to label those things cuts just isn't so. But I rise to offer my amendment, which is affectionately known as the Hefley amendment. Former Congressman Joel Hefley from Colorado offered this amendment on multiple occasions. It is a 1 percent reduction in the increase of this Appropriations bill. Now, to look at the big picture, look at where we are in terms of numbers right now, this current year enacted for this portion of the Federal Appropriations covered $144.6 billion. The President's request, the administration's request, as we all know, was less than that, $140.9 billion. The bill that we have before us is $151.7 billion; $10.8 billion more than the administration's request, more than the request of those that we charge for running this portion of our Nation. My amendment that I am offering now would, instead of having this bill be $151.7 billion, would say let's have it be $150.2 billion. So, a significant increase over last year but a 1 percent reduction from the increase, an increase that would be greater than the rate of inflation but a 1 percent reduction than that that comes from the committee. And the reason for that is because of the financial situation that we find ourselves in as a Nation. If you, Mr. Chairman, or I or any of our constituents find themselves in a situation where they need to save some money, then oftentimes what they will do is say we need to cut back across the board on the kinds of things that we are spending. And this amendment simply states that, out of a 1 percent cut, we ought to be able to find one penny out of every dollar to save for our children's future. And the rationale for that is because it is not our money, Mr. Chairman, it is not Congress's money. It is the hard-earned money of the American taxpayer. And we hear a lot about priorities, and we ought to be prioritizing. And that is what budgetary bills are, that is what appropriations bills are, making priority judgments for the hard-earned American taxpayer money. Our priority on this side is that hardworking American taxpayer. So we rise to offer this amendment that we believe to be a responsible amendment. It outlines the differences between the two sides very clearly. We believe that there ought to be at least one penny out of every dollar that we ought to be able to find in terms of savings for this area for the next year, and offer it sincerely and honestly and respectfully. I would encourage my colleagues to accept the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I was heartened to hear my good friend talk about the promise for the future, because that is exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about the future. It was a bit of an Orwellian speech there, because the actions of this bill don't match the wonderful sunshine that the gentleman paints, but that is all right, because that continues to be the mantra that we hear. Americans know that when you hear the word ``investment'' in this Chamber that what that means is taxes, and it points out the fundamental difference between the majority party and the minority party. The majority party believes that government spends hardworking American taxpayer money better than hardworking American taxpayers. That is the fundamental difference, and that is what this discussion is about. So I am pleased that the gentleman who just spoke shed light on that, because he indeed did. I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from Oklahoma, and look forward to her comments on a fiscally responsible approach to this appropriations bill.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair, and again I appreciate the gentleman's passion. We believe that in order to improve Americans' lives you have got to let them keep more of their hard-earned money and that's what this amendment does, allows Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments that I believe point clearly to what the facts are. I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The conversation that I was having with my assistant to the right resulted in my glee, not to your comment.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose above 14,000 for the first time ever. What a proud moment for all of us. For many of us it is not a surprise. This strong economy is a direct result of the pro-growth Republican policies that we are fighting for every day on this floor. It is a sign of continued and growing investor confidence, and it shows that when taxes are low and Americans choose how and where to spend more of their money they will choose to invest in America and make us stronger. This isn't a victory for Wall Street or for big business; it is a victory for Americans. Over half of all Americans are invested in the stock market. More and more Americans want to participate in this strong and growing economy. So they need a Federal Government that respects those wishes, not one that will raise their taxes to pay for out-of-control spending. Let's keep this economy on the right track. Let's rein in spending. Let's focus on growing our economy rather than Washington's bureaucracy. That is what Americans want.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, this amendment is offered in an effort to try to reprioritize monies between two separate funds related to gaining high-quality teachers in our Nation, the Teacher Incentive Fund and the Teacher Quality State Grants. The Teacher Incentive Fund, my amendment would increase the funding for that by $21 million. When the 2007 fiscal year budget was adopted or the appropriations bill adopted, receipt was $2 million. The request from the President for this year was $199 million, and the bill before us includes a provision for $99 million, $100 million less than the President's request. As opposed to the Teacher Quality State Grants, which received last year $2.8 billion, the President's request was for $2.7 billion and the bill before us includes a provision for $3.1 billion, $400 million more than the request by the Department. Teacher quality, Madam Chairman, is certainly the most important school-related factor influencing student achievement. The No Child Left Behind Act reflects this and one of the central tenets is putting a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Congress now has a greater opportunity to take teacher quality initiatives a step further by increasing funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund, a program that rewards highly effective teachers and rewards results. The Teacher Incentive Fund allows States and school districts to apply for Federal grants in order to develop and implement performance- based compensation systems for both teachers and principals. With the Teacher Incentive Fund, educators who improve student achievement in the classroom are provided with financial rewards such as bonuses and increasing salaries. In 2006, the Teacher Incentive Fund and Congress provided $100 million for the new program; however, in 2007 it received only $2 million, and this is for a program that has shown very successful and rewarding results. There is certainly a need for the fund and to date 34 grantees have received money. But the Department of Education has received nearly 150 applications. More resources would mean more districts would be able to establish performance-based compensation systems. Looking at the workforce, it is estimated that more than 2 million teachers will need to be hired over the next decade. Research has shown that performance pay can be effective at recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers. So the Teacher Incentive Fund will encourage a talented pool of individuals to go into the field of teaching. Again, this is a reprioritization, a movement of $21 million from the Teacher Quality State Grants, which is slated to receive $3.1 billion to the Teacher Incentive Fund, which would then receive $120 million. By doing so, this money can be directly given to local districts to create compensation systems and therefore recruit and reward outstanding teachers. Nothing wrong with rewarding the best and brightest when it comes to educating our children. I urge adoption of the amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I thank the Chair, and I appreciate the gentleman's passion. I would suggest, however, that each of us are elected to this House to determine best how we should use our vote, to either concur or disagree with the manner in which this body spends hard-working American taxpayer money. So I wouldn't criticize anybody for coming to the floor and providing their assessment of priorities as to where they believe hard-earned American taxpayer money ought to be spent. I am pleased to yield to my good friend from New Jersey for a comment.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend for offering the amendment, and I thank him for his explanation. There is no desire to remove all funding in this area. That would be a different debate and a different discussion. That is not the debate we are having right now. Madam Chairman, I do want to point out the larger picture, the bigger picture we are talking about here, and that is the issue of fiscal responsibility and the issue of responsibly spending taxpayer money, hard-earned American taxpayer money. I was pleased to hear the chairman of the Appropriations Committee say to the gentleman from New Jersey that if the committee determined that those funds ought not be authorized, that they would be pleased to remove those funds, or something like that. I would point out to the gentleman and to my colleagues that on page 302, 303, 304, and 305 of the report of the Committee on Appropriations, there is a paragraph that is headed ``Appropriations Not Authorized By Law.'' I would suggest that we revisit these items and require that they be authorized. ``Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules the House, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill,'' this bill we are talking about right now, ``which are not authorized by law for the period concerned.'' It may be helpful, Madam Chairman, for individuals to hear which ones are not authorized, not talking about the quality of those programs or the need for them, but the fact that this is a process that has come about where we are appropriating money for many programs which are in fact not authorized. Department of Labor, for example, Training and Employment Services, not authorized since 2003. Appropriations in this bill, $3.5 billion. Not authorized in this bill, the Veterans Workforce Improvement Program, not authorized since 2003. Appropriated in this bill, $1.649 billion. National Health Service Corps, not authorized since 2002, again not talking about the appropriateness of the appropriation itself, but whether or not the process is such that it ought not be authorized prior to carrying out the appropriation. In this bill, $131 million. Not authorized in this bill, Healthy Start, not authorized since 2005. In this bill, $120 million. Not authorized in this bill, Rural Health Outreach Grants, not authorized since 2006. Funding in this bill to a level of $52.9 million. Not authorized in this bill, cancer registries, not authorized since 2003. In this bill, funded at the rate of $47.9 million. Not authorized in this bill, oral health promotion, not authorized since 2005. Funding in this bill, $13.1 million. Not authorized in this bill, substance abuse and mental health services programs, not authorized since 2003. Funding in this bill, $3.26 billion. Madam Chairman, the list goes on and on, and I draw my colleagues' attention to it, because I would agree with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that we ought to be concerned about what is authorized by the authorizing committees and whether or not appropriations ought to be spent for items that are not authorized. But the challenge for us is to spend responsibly, spend hard-earned taxpayer money responsibly.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.