Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The amendment that the Clerk is currently reading is not one that I am offering.

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

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the Chair's comments and I agree with him that we don't have all the answers. I would suggest, however, that what this amendment does is more appropriately prioritize moneys based upon the concerns and recommendation of the Department of Education. The fundamental difference between the two programs, the Teacher Quality State Grants, which is a program that in many areas gets excellent results, the differences are two that this amendment addresses: One is that the overwhelming portion of the money that is available has been put into the Teacher Quality State Grants, moving from $2.8 billion last year to $3.1 billion this year, as opposed to the Teacher Incentive Fund, which would move from a high of $100 million in the last 2 years to $99 million this year, in essence a flat appropriations. The other main difference is that the Teacher Incentive Fund rewards results. It rewards performance. It rewards teachers and schools who are actually gaining those high quality results that we desire for all students across our Nation. So I would respectfully disagree with the Chair, that this is not prescriptive in its formula and the only rigidity that it has in it is that it requires results. So, hopefully, the House will see that the sense in looking at performance, looking at quality teachers, looking at what they are doing in the classroom and the results that they are getting, and rewarding that kind of performance makes sense. I would suggest that that is what most of us have said at home when we talk to our constituents and that this amendment aligns the actions of this House with what we have told our constituents we would be supporting here in the House of Representatives. So I appreciate the time, and I encourage, again, my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment, because fundamentally what we are charged with doing here is being responsible with hard-earned taxpayer money. As the gentleman from New Jersey said, it is not responsible to pay for two programs that do the same thing, which is why the administration in its review looked at this program, which is wonderfully named, perfectly appropriate, has a wonderful mission, but the provisions of this program are being accomplished elsewhere in the Federal Government. Now, it may be hard for the Chair of the Appropriations Committee to believe that there is some duplication in the Federal Government, but it is not hard for the citizens of the Sixth District of Georgia to believe that there is duplication. The name of the program that accomplishes this same end is the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants Program. The goal of the gentleman from New Jersey, I don't believe, is to eliminate the ability to have appropriate programs for migrant and seasonal farm workers. That is not the goal at all. The goal is to responsibly spend hard-earned taxpayer money in accomplishing the appropriate priorities of the Federal Government. So to have anybody come to the floor and say that anybody who would support this amendment desires to end the programs for migrant and seasonal farm workers is simply not true and not the case, and it doesn't appropriately represent the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I commend him for his desire to make certain that we do not provide duplicative services which are wasteful, wasteful of hard- earned taxpayer money. I am pleased to yield to my friend from New Jersey.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. The point about the demonstration project precisely gets to the point of so many of these programs. We do a poor job as a Federal Government in looking at programs that we put in place as pilots or demonstration projects to determine whether or not their effectiveness has been met. I will have an amendment in a little bit that addresses a program whose mission and goal has been achieved and yet it continues to have money coming from the Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the confusion. I apologize for rising early. This amendment is a simple amendment. It addresses the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership program and would end the funding for this program, saving $65 million of hard-earned taxpayer money. The rationale is, as the administration has described and as has been recommended by the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education, virtually every State operates programs to a much larger degree than the Federal Government that address this very same issue. As I mentioned just a moment ago when I rose to another amendment, we here in Washington enact all sorts of pilot programs and all sorts of trial programs, and so very often, in fact probably more often than not, we don't go back and look as a Federal Government to see whether or not the goal or the mission of those programs has been accomplished. Rarely, in fact, I would suggest, do we see if the goal has been accomplished. This is one in which there has been great success. The mission and the goal of the program has indeed been accomplished. It has accomplished its original objective of stimulating all States to establish need-based post-secondary student grant programs. However, beyond the establishment of these programs, the LEAP program, the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership program itself, does little to encourage States to increase their investment in grant aid for their neediest of students or effectively targets this aid to students who could most benefit from it. When we do look, when the Department of Education and when the Office of Management and Budget performs its assessment and reviews this program, what it says is, at this point, because the mission has been accomplished, the results of any further funding for this program are clearly not demonstrated. So in an effort to achieve again some fiscal responsibility and in an effort to decrease some of the significant waste that does occur at the Federal level, I encourage my colleagues to accept and vote for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for obtaining time, and I appreciate the chairman's comments. Again, the purpose of this amendment is to address wasteful spending. It is a significant responsibility that we have here in the House to make certain that the money we spend, which is hard-earned taxpayer money, is spent wisely. I know there is huge animosity on the other side of the aisle against the President. I think sometimes that animosity actually blinds individuals to some quality work that is coming from the administration. There are high-quality people who work in the administration, this administration, just like every other administration. In fact, there are high-quality people in the Department of Education and there are high-quality people in the Office of Management and Budget who looked at this problem and said that the goals and the mission of this program have, indeed, been accomplished. It was a wonderful program, served a grand purpose, but the goals and the missions have been accomplished. Consequently, it is appropriate, if we are going to be responsible with hard-earned taxpayer money, to end a program that has accomplished its mission, accomplished its goals, and not continue wasteful Federal spending. So I would urge my colleagues, I know that they can be blinded by animosity for the President and for the administration, but I would urge my colleagues to listen to those hardworking individuals in the Federal Government who are looking at these programs and attempting to find cost savings for the American public so that we can prioritize on other programs. That's what this amendment does. It seeks to be responsible with hard-earned taxpayer money. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 633 and 634 I was unavoidably detain and not able to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on 633 and ``no'' on 634.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend from Minnesota for bringing this issue forward. Madam Chairman, this is an extremely important issue, and I think it is important that we bring the debate back to the actual amendment. The amendment addresses the issue of funding for the Office of Labor Management Statistics, and that agency is the only agency of the government that is devoted to protecting the interests of dues-paying union members, the only one. The funding in last year, fiscal year 2007, was about $47 million. Funding proposed for this year is about $45 million. It is a cut of about $2 million. That is a cut. Not the cut that we have heard explained in other bills that were reductions in the increase; it is a cut. The President felt so strongly about this and felt so strongly about the success of this agency that he recommended an increase to $56 million. So this proposal by the majority party is a decrease of $11.1 million from the President's request. Now, it is curious the arguments that we are hearing on the other side. They have increased spending virtually across the board for every single agency except for this one, and this is the one that provides the enforcement for the Department of Labor. I have supported many appropriate reductions, there is no doubt about it, as we have moved through these appropriations bills, but I believe strongly that there is a message that is being sent in this cut that is being proposed by the majority party, and that message is that it is imperative that the debt that they owe to union bosses be paid. And why do I say that? This is an agency that has significant results. Since 2001, the indictments resulting from investigations by this agency have increased by 20 percent. Now, why would we want to decrease funding to an agency that is showing success in protecting dues-paying workers? Convictions have increased by 26 percent and the courts have ordered restitution of over $70 million in union members' dues that were stolen, stolen by union officials. That sounds like a project that would merit support by the majority party, but, as my good friend from Florida just said, it is clear that this is a trend that we are seeing by this new majority party, and that is that the protection of the rank-and-file worker is not what they have an interest in. And that was demonstrated clearly with the card check issue which, as he mentioned, took away the sacrosanct right of a secret ballot in union formation in this Nation. The majority party said, no, that wasn't important, that individuals ought to be exposed to the kind of intimidation that we see on both sides, both the employer and the union side. So, Madam Chairman, I guess it ought not be surprising that we see this included in the current bill, but it is disappointing. There is no doubt that it is disappointing. Because, again, we have an agency of the Federal Government, the Office of Labor Management Statistics, which is getting results, which is fulfilling its mission, which is fulfilling its charge, which is fulfilling its responsibility to the American people and to this Federal Government, and this new majority proposes to significantly cut the amount of funding to the agency. I think it exposes a flaw in the thinking of the majority party and, hence, this general statement that we are the only individuals for working people. In fact, tax cuts are for working people. In fact, decreasing spending at the level of the Federal Government is for working people. In fact, not passing the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation is for working people. So we stand proudly and honorably before the American people and say that the party that stands in favor of working people is the party that is most responsible with Federal spending. It is the party that holds to account Federal agencies. This Federal agency, this office is accomplishing its goal, it is accomplishing its mission, and so it ought not be one that we cut. There are certainly others that are available to be decreased. I urge support of the Kline amendment and ask all my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I will be relatively brief on this. I want to commend my friend from Louisiana for offering the amendment. As a physician in my former life, I appreciate the remarkable increase in the incidence of tuberculosis and the need for surveillance as well as detection and treatment. So I commend my friend from Louisiana for offering this amendment. We all watched with some curiosity and some significant concern within the last couple of months as we tracked the travels of one individual from my City of Atlanta around the world who was felt to have a case of tuberculosis that needed to be treated urgently. So I commend my good friend for the amendment. I do want to say in the larger context, however, that I'm a little perplexed, for the Chair of the Appropriations Committee talks about ``pretending'' to support AmeriCorps in previous amendments dealing with this section of the bill, ``pretending'' to support NLRB, ``pretending'' to support deaf and blind children, and yet those are the amendments that he accepted. So I am a little perplexed as to why this amendment isn't being given the same, at least the same pretending of, support from the Chair of the committee. I would also point out that the appropriately decreased reductions in the proposal from the administration in this area of the budget aren't taken in isolation. They are part of the entire, larger budget, which gets to the issue of the entire, larger budget that this new majority has passed, and that, as you well know, Madam Chairman, includes the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation. So I understand that somehow you have to pay for all these things, but I believe strongly that it is not the American people who desire to have the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation. So I rise to commend my good friend from Louisiana for proposing this sound amendment. I would encourage its adoption. I understand the concerns that others have regarding the underlying section in this area of the bill, but I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I'm pleased to yield to my friend from Florida.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend for his comments, and I would just like to underscore one point that he made, and that is, that all appropriations bills are bills that relate to priorities. And we oftentimes hear from our good friends on the other side that we're quibbling or pretending or all sorts of descriptions about what's going on here tonight, but Madam Chairman, what's going on here tonight is the work of our democracy and the work of representatives in Congress to best represent their constituents. And to scoff at ordering priorities for spending at the Federal level, I don't believe it's an appropriate message to send to the American people. This is important work. This is hard-earned taxpayer money, and it behooves us to spend as much time as any Member in this House so desires to determine the best way in which that money ought to be spent. So I commend my friend for standing up for the priorities that he believes are most appropriate in this bill. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, we have had a number of amendments that have dealt with line items at one point in the bill and then at a point later in the bill that has not been read yet, so I would respectfully suggest that the point of order is not appropriate as it has not been utilized on other amendments that have been offered and that all Members ought to be treated with equity in the offering of their amendments.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I am somewhat amused by the posture of the Appropriations Chair in the last two amendments, and I appreciate the difficult position he finds himself in. But on the one hand, the amendment before this one attempting to support the President's recommendation and then on this one lambasting the President's recommendation. So a case of whiplash, I understand, may be in order. But it is important to talk about exactly what this amendment does. And I want to commend my good friend from Texas for proposing this amendment. The Department of Labor proposes in the President's budget that $14 million go to the International Labor Affairs Bureau, which would move the agency closer to its core mission of research and policy analysis. Remember this is the Department of Labor, not the Department of State. In 2008 the International Labor Affairs Bureau will continue to focus on administering over $530 million, $530 million, in projects that were launched in previous years, including in the field of child labor, as the chairman mentioned. The Department of Labor seeks to restore the International Labor Affairs Bureau to its original mission of research and advocacy by eliminating its grant-making activities. We have all sorts of duplication and redundancies in the Federal Government, and this certainly is one of them. As an example of that, between 1996 and 2001, the International Labor Affairs Bureau's funding rose by 1,500 percent over a 5-year period of time when the agency embarked on an expansive grant-making mission intended to combat international child labor, develop and disseminate AIDS prevention information in the international workplace, support core labor standards development, and provide bilateral technical assistance. Madam Chairman, grant-making activities are appropriately funded through the Department of State and through the USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other agencies. For example, the 2008 budget includes $3 billion to continue international assistance activities in developing countries through the Millennium Challenge Account. The administration created the Millennium Challenge Account to provide targeted and accountable international development assistance to poor countries with a demonstrative commitment to ruling justly, investing in people, and encouraging economic growth. So there are more appropriate places to fund these kinds of grant activities. I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that the gentleman from Texas has proposed an appropriate amendment to return the level of funding in this appropriations bill to a level that would allow the International Labor Affairs Bureau to return to its core mission, its core mission of research and policy analysis and I believe better serve this Congress and the American people. So I commend the gentleman for his amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support 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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad and disappointing day for this House and for America. Once again, the majority is placing politics over national security, politics over reasoned policy, politics and partisanship over citizens and sanity. Clearly this bill was not written in response to what our generals think, whose interim report was released just hours ago. Instead, it was written in reaction to polls and to political pressure from MoveOn.org and others. This isn't a thoughtful piece of legislation to achieve success in Iraq or success for America. The lack of definition for a limited presence included in the bill reveals that this is just another cynical attempt by the majority to politically pander. How terribly disappointing. In effect, this legislation is a vote of no confidence in our military commanders, and it's a shot of encouragement to al Qaeda. It's pure political opportunism, and it's devoid of military strategy. As Members of Congress, we have a greater responsibility than just to politics. We have a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of long-term American security. We must be thoughtful. We must be deliberate in our actions. We have a capable leader, General David Petraeus, unanimously approved by the Senate, the expert in counterinsurgency strategy. He was given by this Congress, just a few weeks ago, until September, to make positive progress in Iraq and report. But this majority isn't interested in what our military commanders are capable of, or the situation on the ground. Their only interest is politics, in raising the white flag and in coming home without any thought or definition as to when or where they are willing to defend our security. But because the political climate is ripe, the majority wants to undercut our troops. It's upsetting, it's sad, and it's very disconcerting that politics would trump national security. This bill signals to our enemies that it doesn't matter what the commanders say. It says that thoughtful military strategy takes a back seat to good politics. This isn't an exit strategy, it's a political strategy. How terribly disappointing. I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and to commit to positively working together on behalf of the American people and American security.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for his leadership on this issue and so many others. I rise opposed to this rule for process and policy reasons. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the new majority promised us and they promised the American people a fair and open process. But again, the majority has failed to live up to its promises, and now that it is out from under the spotlight of election-year promises, we see that they are few and far between. Before last year's election, Speaker Pelosi said, ``Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voices silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.'' And, Mr. Speaker, I agree. So what's changed? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise? In December following last year's election, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, told the media that ``We intend to have a Rules Committee . . . that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.'' Mr. Speaker, where is the commitment to that promise, with only six of 23 amendments made in order? What has changed, Mr. Speaker? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise? Mr. Speaker, the Rules chairman, Ms. Slaughter, has said, ``If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and the thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule, not just appropriations bills . . . an open process should be the norm, not the exception.'' Mr. Speaker, what's changed? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise? Rules Committee member Mr. McGovern has said, ``I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you want to show some bipartisanship, if you want to promote a process that has some integrity, then this should be an open rule. All Members should have an opportunity to come here and offer amendments to this bill to improve the quality of the deliberations on this House floor. They should be able to come and offer amendments to clean up this place.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, what's changed? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise? Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel has said, ``Let's have an up- and-down vote. Don't be scared. Do not hide behind some little rule. Come on out here. Put it out on the table and let's have a vote . . . So don't hide behind the rule. If this is what you want to do, let's have an up-and-down vote. You can put your votes right up there . . . and then the American people can see what it is all about.'' So what has changed, Mr. Speaker? Is it political expediency or is it a broken promise? Mr. Speaker, I am also very curious as to what has happened with the distinguished chairman and my friend on the Financial Services Committee. In the past, not only has he been a vocal advocate for open rules to the legislation that he has brought to the floor, but the new majority has spared him no effort to applaud him for doing so. In fact, Chairman Frank was such a firm believer in allowing debate, allowing consideration of amendments, that Representative Welch of Vermont felt so moved to say, ``All of us applaud the work of Chairman Frank for recommending an open rule to this bill . . . '' But, Mr. Speaker, that was on a previous bill. So I would ask what's changed. What is the chairman afraid of? Because it certainly appears that he has lost his passion for an open and a fair process. In a letter dated July 9, 2007, to the Chair of the House Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, Chairman Frank urged that the Rules Committee ``provide a structured amendment process.'' So what's changed, Mr. Speaker? What's changed? The Rules Committee Web site lists 23 amendments submitted for consideration, yet only six were made in order. So what's so scary about the other 17? What's so scary? Mr. Speaker, I submitted three amendments not made in order by this draconian and restrictive rule. My first amendment would have applied pay-as-you-go spending rules to this bill that CBO has said will have a net cost of $2.4 billion over the next 5 years. Remember Democrats' promise to use PAYGO rules for everything; instead, they're picking and choosing when to do so. At home we call that breaking a rule and breaking a promise. The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, is clearly a substantive one. It would have prevented, as the gentlelady from Florida said, prevented illegal immigrants from receiving assistance under the section 8 program by providing all adults to provide secure identification before receiving assistance. It's the kind of commonsense amendment that the Financial Services Committee has applied before. It has also been accepted by the full House on other legislation. The third amendment would have helped clarify a new requirement for public housing authorities. This bill provides that the public housing authorities have to report rental payments as alternative data to the credit bureaus. Rental payment information is clearly different than other forms of commerce and may need to be treated differently in order to ensure accuracy of credit reporting. These were three thoughtful and substantive amendments which deserved the consideration of all 435 Members of the House, but they were denied that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, by this restrictive and draconian rule. Mr. Speaker, back home in my district, rules aren't rules if you only follow them when you want to. Democrats promised to use a fair and open process for everything. Instead, they're picking and choosing. And when you pick and choose to do so, it's called breaking a rule and breaking a promise. So I urge the new majority to rededicate itself to its campaign promises of a fair and open process. We should allow this Chamber to work its will on all legislation. An open process shouldn't just be something that's just talked about solely on the campaign trail. What amendment was so scary that it ought not be included in this discussion? I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule so that we may have a complete, open and fair debate. The American people deserve and expect no less.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend from Illinois for yielding, and I want to thank also the Chair of the committee and Chair of the subcommittee for the work that they have done on this, and the ranking member. I rise to express a few sincere and serious concerns with section 9 of the bill. This is the section that allows the public housing authorities, or the PHAs, to report the rental payments of its tenants to credit reporting agencies. Reporting alternative data, like rental payments, to the credit reporting agencies may indeed be a very good thing. The hope obviously is that increased alternative data will help improve the credit reports for consumers and, in the long run, provide them with better and less expensive access to credit. In this increasingly credit-drive society, that's truly an important thing. However, I've got four specific concerns with the way that the language in section 9 of this bill is written. First is the format that this data will take. The language of the underlying bill requires the PHAs and credit reporting agencies to establish a system and format for reporting the new data. This is obviously new territory for PHAs, and they haven't done it before and aren't financial institutions and have no history of providing reporting data in the proper format. Second concern is that this section may be incorrectly read to constitute a new requirement on the credit reporting agencies, and I would submit that this would be a drastic and significant change to our current system. Currently, credit reporting agencies must consider the timeliness of the data supplied to them. They must verify that it is accurate data, ensure that there hasn't been any case of identity fraud so that false data is not included in an unsuspecting consumer's credit file. Rental payment, clearly that information is different than other forms of commerce, and it may need to be treated differently. A third concern is that the section, as it reads, would apply to ``families receiving tenant-based housing choice vouchers.'' Credit files historically are unique to individuals. Credit reporting agencies have no way to adjust their credit files for an entire family. So I wonder again sincerely what the real consequences of this ambiguity and potentially harmful aspect are to spreading potential financial responsibility to some without regard to accountability. My fourth concern may be the most important, and that is, that the underlying legislation requires that the PHA, or the public housing agency, gain the permission of the family in writing before submitting the data to credit reporting agencies. This provision potentially would turn our credit reporting system on its head. It's a 100-year-old system based on the voluntary reporting of data to credit reporting agencies. If consumers are able to turn on or off when the data is reported, then it, in its essence, undermines completely the accuracy of the credit reports. Both those who furnish the data to the credit reporting agencies and those who use that data to offer credit to consumers rely on the accuracy of these reports so that they can appropriately and responsibly price the cost of credit to a specific consumer. If someone can decide not to submit certain data to a credit reporting agency, then the accuracy of that data will be greatly compromised. I sincerely believe that a few minor changes to the underlying legislation would indeed perfect the language in a way that would allow for new alternative data to help consumers and also to have that new data submitted in a way that does not undermine a credit reporting system that truly has become the envy of the world. It's my hope that we can work on these concerns as this legislation moves forward, and once again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for her time and thank the Chair of the committee and subcommittee for their work on this issue.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor Miss Katja Martin, a sixth grade student from my district, who is an inspired writer and gifted reader and writer. This year, the Library of Congress has selected Miss Katja Martin of Appharetta, Georgia as one of only six national winners in their annual ``Letters About Literature'' program. With more than 56,000 adolescent and young adult readers in fourth through 12th grades participating, this program encourages students to read and be inspired and to write a letter that might have been sent to an author who has changed the student's view of the world and of themselves. For her entry, Miss Martin wrote about the Robert Frost poem, ``Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.'' Because of her talented efforts, she and the other five national winners will be honored at the National Book Festival on September 29 here in Washington, DC, where they will have the opportunity to read their letters to the gathered audience. I am pleased to have the House recognize this accomplishment. It's a great honor for me to be able to represent and recognize Katja Martin, clearly a dedicated and intelligent young lady.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leadership for allowing me to come to the floor of the House this evening and spend another hour of The Official Truth Squad, a group of individuals who come to the floor at least once a week, we try to, at least, to try to shed a little light, a little correct view on the situations that occur here in our Nation's Capital and especially here on the House floor. This group grew out of some frustration by Members on the Republican side of the aisle who felt that there was less light and less truthfulness being spoken here on the floor of the House, and that so often, because of the constrained rules on the floor of the House, we and others were prevented from bringing those instances to light. So we started what we call The Official Truth Squad, and the leadership has been very kind in allowing us to shed that light, bring that truth to the Members of the House and hopefully set the record straight so often. We have many favorite sayings. One of them that I enjoy most is one from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitle to their own facts. When you think about it, it's so very true here that if we were to deal more in fact that we would have a much better debate, a much better discussion, a discussion that would be much more appropriate for the American people, and live up to the charge that we have all been given, that is, to represent our constituents to the best ability that we have. But facts oftentimes don't hold the day here. But, hopefully, during this hour we will be able to bring some light to some very interesting matters that have been brought before the House and some that are yet to come in the days and the weeks ahead. It has been a curious time here in Washington since the beginning of the year. It's a time of what I have called and dubbed Orwellian democracy, Orwellian democracy, because so often what we see is the party in charge, the majority party, says one thing and then does something completely different. So it harkens back to the author, George Orwell, and the double speak that he highlighted. It's, sadly, distressing that the leadership on the other side of the aisle seems to be all politics all the time. It's a shame, because we both have just gotten back in town from a week of district work period, and I know that you likely heard what I heard at home, and that is that folks are frustrated and oftentimes disgusted with the kind of activity that goes on here in Washington, the kind of lack of debate, the lack of open and honest discussion. The all politics all the time is very frustrating to my constituents, and, I suspect, to those of yours as well. Tomorrow is one of those days that will be a classic example of all politics all the time. The majority party has seen fit to bring forth, and you have heard a lot of folks talk about the issue this evening on the other side of the aisle, but they have seen fit to bring forth another resolution on the war in Iraq. It's curious that it comes literally just hours after the Speaker of the House had an individual stand up, who is known to folks far and wide across this Nation, and say that she was going to challenge the Speaker in the next election. So it appears that the timeliness of this resolution may be, again, all politics all the time in response to an electoral challenge that may be coming upon the Speaker of the House. But the sad part about all of this, as it relates to the war in Iraq, and we are going to talk about a number of issues tonight, but the sad part about the resolution that's coming up tomorrow is that it is all just politics. It's not anything about real policy debates for the American people; it's not about real action. This Congress, this House and the Senate, said relatively recently that we were going to allow the reinforcements to run their course in Iraq, that we are going to allow General David Petraeus, who is on the ground there, along with credible fortitude and gallantry on the part of the American men and women, that we were going to allow the increase in the reenforcements of the American troops to run their course and see whether or not there was progress being made. Now, just a few short weeks after the number of individuals have increased in Iraq, the majority party says, oh, no, we really didn't mean that, we need a new bumper sticker, we need a new headline, so they are going to bring a resolution on Iraq tomorrow. It is really a shame and very sad, because it, again, doesn't add anything to the debate, doesn't do anything other than highlight the politics of this majority party and the fact that they are having extreme difficulty getting any real accomplishments. So they bring another very politically motivated resolution on the war in Iraq, Orwellian democracy, saying one thing and doing another. We have been told this is going to be the most open and honest Congress, most open and honest Congress ever. Well, the facts of the matter, the facts of the matter are that this is one of the most closed and clandestine Congresses ever to grace the American public. It is really a shame, again, really a shame, because issues aren't being debated the way that they should. We will talk very specifically about one of those issues tonight. I want to highlight a couple areas where Orwellian democracy is holding forth and living and surviving well with this new majority. As you know well, this new majority came to power, and they said we are going to cut spending, we are going to decrease spending; we are going to be more responsible with spending hard-earned taxpayer money out there. What does this new majority do? They increase spending. They couldn't wait to criticize all the spending that went on under the charge of the Republican Party when we were in the majority. So what they said, in essence, you spent so much, and it was so awful, that we are going to spend more. That's what they have done. They have increased spending by over $25 billion, $25 billion in the appropriations bills so far, and we are barely halfway through, if that, of the appropriations bills. I would suggest to the American people that it's time to put your hands squarely on your wallet, because the true tax-and-spend majority is back in charge, and it's of great concern, I know, to my constituents and, I suspect, if you talk to yours as well. When they adopted their budget, they adopted a budget that includes the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, nearly $400 billion tax increase. Again, not what they said they were going to do, and not what they said they have done, as a matter of fact. That's why it's Orwellian democracy, because they won't even fess up and own up to the fact, the fact that they have passed a budget that includes the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation. Then they go on and they talk about fiscal responsibility. In fact, many Members have posters outside their offices up here in Washington. Some constituents may have come by the Halls of Congress and seen the posters. The posters look wonderful. They talk about the need for fiscal responsibility, and the amount of the debt, the amount of the deficit. But, in fact, when given the opportunity to decrease the debt, and to decrease the deficit, what happens is that they continually say no. Orwellian democracy is alive and well. Just today, just today we passed a bill that was the reauthorization of the higher education act for our Nation. But it didn't just reauthorize the act and provide more money for students of low-income, and ``low'' means to be able to attend colleges and universities. No, it didn't just do that. What it did in addition to that was to create nine new entitlement programs, nine new entitlement programs. Now, entitlement programs are really a misnomer. They are programs that are on automatic pilot here. They are mandatory spending. They are programs that get started, and they never, ever end, because they are not able to be touched by the kind of discretionary spending that Congress has more control over. They just spend on and on and on, year after year. Yes, this majority created nine new entitlement programs that will spend upwards of $18 billion in just a few short years, a new $18 billion. So there are nine new entitlements, no reform, no reform listed for the entitlement programs, which brings me to this issue of mandatory spending growth that we have seen in our Nation. It's comprised of all sorts of mandatory spending programs, entitlement programs; but there are three that kind of highlight the major problem that we have. Of the nine new ones that they passed today, however, they may grow into being as important as these three, but the three are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those three programs, in and of themselves, comprise about 54 percent of our Federal budget right now, about 54 percent of our Federal budget. Our mandatory programs are mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The reason that's important is because these programs are mandatory, because they are on kind of automatic pilot, the amount of money, hard- earned American taxpayer money that comes to Washington that is spent on those programs increases gradually every single year. So what this chart here shows, these pie charts here show is that in 1995, those three programs comprised about 48.7 percent of the Federal budget, about half of the Federal budget just 12 short years ago. Now, as I mentioned, about 54, 55 percent of the Federal budget is comprised of these mandatory, automatic-spending programs. In a few short years, 2017, it will be about 62, 63 percent of the Federal budget. That's important because one would think that if you looked at that slope of increase in spending, slope of increase in total spending of the mandatory programs, as it relates to the Federal budget, in a relatively short period of time, it's true, as you know, that those three programs will comprise the entire Federal budget, the entire Federal budget, about 2030, 2035, somewhere in that range, which is within the lifetime of most of us here in this Chamber and certainly the vast majority of the citizens in our districts. That's important because something has got to change. You can't have these programs continue as they are without appropriate and responsible reform. So one would think that the party in charge would say, well, we have got to look at these, and we have got to make certain that we reform these programs, otherwise we are going to have all of the Federal money going to these three programs. When our party, my party, was in charge, what we attempted to do was to appropriately reform these programs and work diligently to make that happen. So in 1997, with the Balanced Budget Act, we passed entitlement reform. We decreased the slope of that line. Now, we didn't end it, because of the difficulty in doing that, there are ways to do that, but it's extremely difficult both politically and financially to do that. But in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we increased by about $137 billion the entitlement mandatory spending over a period of time. In fact, in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2 years ago, of 2005, it was about $40 billion in reform, reform spending in those entitlement programs. It makes it so that the hard-earned taxpayer money is more responsibly spent, that it makes it so that we work diligently to decrease the deficit and to decrease the debt. One would again believe that looking at the previous charts, and realizing that these programs are expanding exponentially, and that they are very, very soon to comprise a much greater portion of the Federal budget, one would say, well, the party in charge probably, when they adopted a budget, they would bring about some appropriate reform to mandatory programs. That's what I expected. It's what my constituents expected. Frankly, I think it's what the American people expected when they went to the polls and voted last November. They expected a more bold process for reform of automatic mandatory spending. Many of us on our side of the aisle would have been in support of that. But what happened? You see over on the far right of this chart, it shows the amount of entitlement reform under this new leadership. Do you remember Orwellian democracy, the talk about fiscal responsibility, the talk about importance for entitlement reform, the talk about reforming the Federal Government, making it run more efficiently? Well, what happened is that the budget was adopted by this new majority that had no entitlement reform, none. In fact, as I mentioned earlier today, nine new entitlement programs adopted, put into place, one could make an argument that that not ought to be zero, that ought to be minus, that this new majority is going in the wrong direction. When they talk about a new direction for America, there is a new direction for America, but it's the wrong direction. It's the direction of greater debt and greater deficit and greater fiscal irresponsibility. That is not what the American people bargained for. I have no doubt about it. Which brings us to the issue that I would like to spend a fair amount of time on this evening. There is a proposal coming forward later this month, within maybe just a few short days, that will address the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance program. This is a program that is near and dear to my heart. Mr. Speaker, as you may remember, before I came to Congress, I was a physician. I was an orthopedic surgeon. I spent over 20 years practicing orthopedic surgery in Atlanta. And one of the things that drove me in to politics, to stand up and say, I would like to serve my constituents in the public in this way, was a belief that there were individuals both in my State capital and in Washington that thought they had a better idea, about almost anything, but especially a better idea about health care; that they thought that they could make better decisions about health care than the people involved; that is, patients. So the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, is one of those that I think highlights one of the fundamental differences, one of the fundamental flaws in this Orwellian Democratic leadership, which is that they say one thing and then do something completely different. Because what they will say is that they are interested in reforming the system and bringing greater health care, more health care for more children across our Nation, and, Mr. Speaker, what they will do and what they will propose is in fact a program that will move us one step closer, one step further down the road to a nationalized health insurance program and also one step closer to a program that will make it so that patients, parents, doctors are unable to make health care decisions. It is not what the American people bargained for, there is no doubt about it. This new majority is obviously driven by the left in our Nation, driven by, I think, a small minority of individuals who firmly believe, again, that the government knows best; that the government knows best how to make all sorts of decisions. But in this instance it is personal. It is personal for every single American. Certainly it is personal for the children in these programs; because what this program is saying and what is being proposed is that the government, that Washington knows better what kind of health care you need, and we make better decisions. We, politicians, bureaucrats here in Washington, make better decisions than individuals, than individuals, than children and their parents together. I think it is helpful that we are having this debate because I think it provides that great contrast, that wonderful contrast between the party of individual responsibility, and the party that believes that patients and parents and their doctors ought to be able to make medical decisions, and the party that believes that the government ought to be making those decisions. So I am looking forward to the debate. It is a difficult issue because the consequences are so great and the consequences are so personal to each and every American. I don't know anybody that believes truly that the government can make better health care decisions for themselves. I don't know anybody that believes the government can do that. So I am looking forward to the debate as we move forward on the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I am going to talk a little bit more about that as we go on, but I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Tennessee, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, who is a leader in so many areas, but especially in the area of health care, and serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee. I am so pleased to have you join us this evening and share your concerns and your knowledge and information about the State Children's Health Insurance Program.