Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. If the gentlelady will yield. I appreciate your comments. And I appreciate especially concentrating in that last statement about whose money this is, because so often we lose sight here with the incredible number of zeroes that we deal with here in Washington, billions and billions of dollars, truly. And all of those dollars take hardworking Americans waking up every single day, making certain that they have cared for themselves and their family, and getting to work and being generous enough to entrust to us their hardearned money, and it is incumbent upon us to spend that money wisely. And the challenge that I see with every government program, but especially this State Children's Health Insurance Program; it is a noble cause. It is a noble cause without a doubt. Who can object to providing health care for needy children? So it is a noble cause, but it is a government program that is clearly being morphed into something else. And I think that is what you were alluding to.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Let me get this straight. In the Children's Health Insurance Program, there are hundreds of thousands of adults who are being covered? How is that possible?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady again for that perspective. And I just want to highlight something that you mentioned, and that is that there are proposals here in the House and in Congress to make this program mandatory, part of that entitlement mentality that exists on the other side of the aisle, and to increase the eligibility for this mandatory program up to 400 percent of the poverty level; you mentioned that is about $82,000 for a family of four. This chart demonstrates that the percent of children who would be covered up to 200 percent, which is what has been the original guidelines for the SCHIP program and what we believe ought to be appropriate at this point, is 50 percent of the kids will be covered in a Federal-State program. If you go up to 300 percent, then it gets to 77 percent of the children. If you go up to 400 percent of the poverty level, you get nearly 90 percent of children in a Federal health care program. And that's what sheds light on the real issue here, the real issue being who ought to be in charge of health care for our Nation's children and for our Nation's families, and for individual people all across this Nation. We believe it ought not be the Federal Government, I think that that's fair to say. And the other side clearly believes that this is the next step, to allow them to have the Federal Government control health care. And I'm happy to yield.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate that because you triggered in my mind something about cost-of-government programs. And I'm reminded of the fact that when Medicaid itself was instituted in the mid-1960s that there was a wonderful estimate that said that Medicaid, at the turn of the century, when 2000 rolled around, would only cost about $8 billion. In fact, it cost about $80 billion. So the Federal Government is always off by a significant factor, and so when you hear an estimate that this will only cost $108 billion, in fact, we can say with relative certainty that that is a lesser amount than it would actually cost, and it would be much greater burden on the American taxpayer. And I'm pleased to yield back.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you so much for you comments. And I think the issues that you point out most recently there on the bargaining chips really speaks to the cynicism with which this leadership leads this Congress because it is, it's purchasing votes. It's purchasing numbers of votes in order to pass a bill. And then to have the, again, the all politics all the time, the bumper sticker politics that goes on by this leadership. And it is, frankly, what the American people are tired of. It's not what they voted for in November. And they are clearly telling each other and telling any individual who will ask that that has decreased their opinion of Congress. And I'm pleased to yield.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you so much. I appreciate your perspective this evening so much on the program about which you know a lot and your perspective from the committee, and especially your perspective about representing constituents, real Americans, real Americans who are working just as hard as they can to make ends meet and being so very, very frustrated with a Federal Government and a leadership now in Congress that appears absolutely more interested in dividing and conquering, as opposed to putting in place appropriate policies. So I appreciate your comments. I just want to make a few more comments about the specifics of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, because I think that there are a number of issues that need to be pointed out as we move forward with this debate. The current program, as we've talked about, was meant to cover, was scheduled and meant to cover children up to 200 percent of the poverty level. And as we've heard, many of the States covered to a higher degree than that. Some 235, some 250, some went up to 350 percent of the poverty level. And although that is, I think, a move in a direction that's not consistent, certainly with the intent of Congress, it probably is a move away from where the American people thought that program was going, without a doubt. But, Mr. Speaker, it definitely is a move away from the intent when you look at the programs and realize that even those States that went up to 300 and 350 percent of the poverty level, some even up to 250 percent of the poverty level weren't even covering all of the children under 200 percent of the poverty level. And they were covering adults. So it just was a flawed program. And it is so often what happens here in Washington: Federal programs are enacted. Noble cause is outlined. Wonderful banner headlines provided. Great speeches given about how this will save this, that or the other thing. And then the implementation is so terribly and woefully flawed. And that has indeed happened in this case. This reauthorization, as has been mentioned, is up because the program is about to be 10 years old. It expires on September 30 of this year. As a physician, I joined many of my colleagues before I came to Congress and before I was in the State legislature early in the 1990s, and many of us believed we were at a crossroads at that time as it related to health care. There were many on the other side of the aisle, on the Democrat side of the aisle, who believed that the government ought to take over health care at that point in the early 1990s. And, Mr. Speaker, as you will remember and as many folks will remember, if they think back to that time, there was a huge battle and a lot of expose about what the consequences of that would be. And thank goodness we didn't march down that road. But we are now back at that crossroads. We backed up. We went down another road a little bit, and some of the direction was correct. Some of the direction was putting us further toward government-run health care. But we are now at that crossroads where we have a group of individuals in charge in the United States House of Representatives now, with a Democrat leadership, who believe that a Washington- controlled bureaucratic health care model is what America wants. I don't believe that is what America wants. It certainly isn't what my constituents want. It wasn't what my patients wanted when I was practicing medicine. I think it is important, as we look at this program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and as we look at the fact that it is up for reauthorization, that we ought to ask some questions. What have the consequences of the program been to date? Indeed, we have covered a number of children who would not possibly have had health insurance. One of the consequences of raising the Federal poverty level eligibility for the Children's Health Insurance Program is that we crowd out children who might otherwise be obtaining insurance through a private plan where their mom or their dad work. But there are other consequences, and some of those consequences are grave. One of them is, I believe, an increased dependence on government for the provision of health care. There is no doubt about that. I believe also that it undermines parental responsibility. And there is no doubt that it increases the burden on the hard-working American taxpayer. I would like to touch on a few specifics on each of those. Increasing dependency on government, where does that come from? Well, when you look at the year 1998 and the percent of American children who were on either Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program, in 1998 it was about 28 percent. Twenty-eight percent of American children were enrolled in 1998 in either Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. In 2005, that number had jumped to 45 percent or 6.2 million children. So it went in 1998 from 28 percent to 45 percent in 2005. So there is no doubt that there is an increased dependency on the government for the provision of health care. Again, I don't think that is what the American people had in mind. State policies also have increased and encouraged the trend of adult enrollees. A couple of examples which just boggle my mind, Mr. Speaker, in Minnesota, for example, 87 percent of those enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 2005 were adults. Eighty-seven percent were adults. That is not what Congress voted on in 1997. That is not what the American people thought was going to be the program to provide health insurance, health access, health care for the neediest children in our Nation. In Wisconsin, the number was 66 percent. So, in Wisconsin, 66 percent, and in Minnesota, 87 percent in 2005 were adults on the Children's Health Insurance Program. That is not what this program was to be about. And State officials, as we have mentioned, didn't stick to the 200 percent. So in New Jersey, for example, the amount went up to 350 percent of the poverty level. Mr. Speaker, that is an income of about $72,000. Now, that may or may not seem to be a lot of money to some folks, but the problem that we get in this doublespeak in Washington, in this Orwellian democracy model that we have by the leadership right now is that, as Congresswoman Blackburn mentioned, on the one hand, $72,000 is deemed to be ``rich'' by the other side of the aisle when it comes to the alternative minimum tax, but $72,000 for a given State under this program is deemed to be needy so that the State has to cover children in their health insurance program. Clearly it is doublespeak. Clearly it is Orwellian democracy. It has become increasingly clear that there are many Members of Congress who believe that expansion into higher income levels for families is exactly what they want because they at their core desire government health insurance over private health insurance. They desire a Washington-controlled bureaucratic model for the provision of health care and medicine in our Nation. So it is clear that the program has increased dependency on the government for the provision of health care. How about transferring family responsibilities, taking the place of parents, transferring family responsibilities to the government? There is no doubt that that has occurred and in a variety of ways. In many cases, for example, the SCHIP program means that children's health coverage will be totally separate than their parents. So they go to different offices. They go to different office locations. There are different office hours. There are different doctors that care for them, different paperwork, all of which makes life more difficult. It makes the Federal Government and the State government the determiners. It makes them making the decisions for parents and for families. I believe that the goal should be to help unite families, to help unite their coverage under one private plan that they select, that they own, not to spread the coverage out through a hodgepodge that increases dependency on the government. Some in Congress suggest that private coverage is unattainable for lower-income families or working families. But the facts tell a different story. Remember, Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts? Well, the facts tell a different story. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 50 percent of children whose families earn between 100 and 200 percent of the Federal poverty level have private health insurance coverage. Remember the other 50 percent covered by this program, 50 percent are covered by private health insurance. That number skyrocketed to 77 percent for those families that earn 200 to 300 percent of the Federal poverty level. In fact, 60 percent of people covered by SCHIP expansions already had private coverage available to them. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because that is a startling statement. It is a startling fact, and it is something that we ought to pay attention to. Sixty percent of the people covered by SCHIP expansions were already covered by private insurance before the program was instituted. Mr. Speaker, what that means is that we are making decisions here in Washington that are providing financial incentives for individuals and businesses and people to move their health care coverage to government, and when we do that, it is incumbent upon us to ask the question, should we be doing that? What are the consequences of doing that? What are the unintended consequences of doing that? In 2012, if we continue down this road, 71 percent of the American children will be in a government-run health care system. Now, what does that mean? What are the consequences of that? As a physician, I am here to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the consequences of that are that more health care decisions are made by bureaucrats and are made by individuals here in Washington than are made by doctors and their patients and children's parents. That is what it means. It means that more personal health care decisions move away from being made by patients and their doctors. That is not what we ought to be about. That is not increasing choice for individuals in the health care system. That is not increasing freedom for individuals in the health care system. That is creating a system that is Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care, and I don't believe that that is what the American people desire. This program definitely has burdened the taxpayer. There is no doubt about that. You couldn't reach any other conclusion regardless of where you come down on the program. As was mentioned, this will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. And if it is made into an automatic or mandatory or entitlement program, it will increase even greater than that. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have just a few short minutes, but I do want to touch on what we believe, what I believe we ought to do because there are positive solutions. There are positive answers to how we ought to move in a direction that provides patient-centered health care, patient-centered health care, something that I believe is wanted by the American people. It is something that I have termed American values and American vision. And one of those American values and one of those American visions is to have a health care system that is patient centered, that allows patients and their doctors to make decisions, not government officials. Not government officials. That is not where the American people want us to be. So if we are going to have a Children's Health Insurance Program, then we ought to live up to the premise for which it was brought about, and that is to target it to low-income families, low-income, uninsured families. And there is an easy way to do that. There is an easy way to do that. You can empower families to make health care decisions that directly affect their own children. The way that you do that is through a robust system of premium assistance. You can provide and allow parents to utilize the SCHIP funds to be able to purchase private health care coverage without government micromanagement. It is a system that results, in essence, in a defined contribution program so that the Federal Government would, when needed for low-income uninsured children, provide assistance that would allow for the purchase of a private health insurance policy so that the family owns the policy. And when that happens, what that means is that it becomes patient-centered because the individuals, the parents, will select the best program for their child. And that is all that anybody is truly wanting. They want a system that responds to the health care needs of their family and their children; not a system where the Federal Government is making those decisions. It is easy to also provide for a program that would expand the options for individuals and families beyond the narrow confines of the SCHIP program. It is important that the perceived need is for a system that provides appropriate health care, indeed, but the appropriate need is for one that is responsive to patients. I have a few other items that I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, before I close. And that is, again, that if we move toward the system that is being proposed by the folks who are interested in Washington- controlled bureaucratic health care, 71 percent of America's children will be on Medicaid or SCHIP in the year 2012. Over the next 4 years, if nothing has changed with this program and others, we will move from $11,000 per year, per household, Federal money, $11,000 per household to $13,000 per household spent on health care. And there is a wonderful article that I would like to point out to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that was published on June 28 by Robert Novak called, ``Socialized Medicine for 'Kids.''' And I will include that in the Record. I urge my colleagues to avail themselves of this article. This talks about removing the ability of parents to make personal health care decisions for their children. Socialized Medicine for ``Kids'' (By Robert D. Novak) Washington--There is no need to wait until a new president is elected next year for the great national health care debate. It is underway right now, disguised as a routine extension of an immensely popular, non-controversial 10-year- old program of providing coverage to poor children. In fact, this proposal is the thin edge of the wedge to achieve the longtime goal of government-supplied universal health insurance and the suffocation of the private system. The Senate Finance Committee was scheduled to mark up this portentous legislation expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) today [Thursday], but disagreement over the size of the program and how to pay for it forced postponement. Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller's version would triple SCHIP's current five-year cost of $25 billion to a level of $75 billion. That would grant federal largesse to more than just poor ``kids'' (as politicians endearingly call children). An estimated 71 percent of all American children in families of four making as much as $82,000 a year would become eligible, with states also continuing present coverage of adults under SCHIP. But where to find money to cover the massive cost? Senators of both parties want to raise tobacco taxes, but that well is not bottomless, as existing taxes have reduced cigarette smoking. Instead, House Democrats want to take money from private elements of Medicare instituted by the Bush administration. The overall effect would make three out of four American children accustomed to relying on government care no matter what course their parents take. In sum, SCHIP turns out to be socialized medicine for ``kids'' (and many adults). A principal sponsor of the $75 billion program is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose hand is detected in health care struggles the past 15 years. After the Clinton administration's sweeping ``Hillarycare'' failed in 1994 and contributed to that year's Republican takeover of Congress, the first lady miniaturized her goals by limiting coverage to poor children. Republicans, led by Sen. Orrin Hatch in one of his several collaborations with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, had lost their revolutionary zeal after the government shutdown of 1995 and accepted SCHIP as a fallback position at a beginning outlay of $4 billion a year. It was the bargaining chip given President Bill Clinton in return for him signing the Deficit Reduction Act of 1997. SCHIP over the past decade has been a beloved ``kids'' program whose faults were overlooked, much like the Head Start school program. The federal government has consistently granted waivers to permit 14 states to cover adults under SCHIP, which now cost $5 billion a year. Minnesota led the way, with 92 percent of money spent under the program going to adults. The massive expansion was proposed by Sen. Clinton this year, furthering her promise of ``step by step'' advancement toward universal health care. Her proposal extends SCHIP to families at 400 percent of poverty (or $82,000 annually). Hatch after 10 years is back again supporting a Democratic program along with Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Finance Committee's ranking Republican. But they want a mere $55 billion (a $30 billion increase), compared with Rockefeller's $75 billion, causing the postponement of today's markup. The Democratic congressional majority now faces the consequence of its ``paygo'' mandate to account for higher spending. The Senate's preference for tobacco taxes runs into present overall cigarette taxes of more than one dollar a pack, lower legal cigarette purchases and reduced smoking typified by a 19 percent decline in New York City. More creative funding comes with Rep. Pete Stark's scheme in the House Ways and Means Committee for slashing the popular private Medicare program. That not only would fund an expanded SCHIP but move toward government monopoly over all health insurance. An indirect but pervasive impact of Sen. Clinton's grand design would be the impact in the same family of children who are insured by the government while their parents are covered privately. Would the children become accustomed to Washington taking care of them? Would the adults drop private insurance? The future is now for universal health care coverage, and President George W. Bush may soon face the decision of whether or not to veto it going into the election year. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to urge my colleagues to make certain that we remember why we were elected. We were elected to represent honestly and hopefully and responsibly our constituents, especially in the area of health care, an area that I knew very well as a physician and about which I became very frustrated because of governmental intervention. We are responsible to make certain that we set in place programs and policies that allow for the most personal decisions of our lives and of our children's lives to be made by individuals and their parents and their families, not by government. So I urge my colleagues to make certain that as we move forward with this debate and with this discussion that we act responsibly and allow patients, their parents, and physicians to make health care decisions.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, freedom is the foundational principle of our society. Our founders were champions of this God-given right and charged future generations with eternal vigilance to protect it. Now, a handful of people in Washington want Uncle Sam to start telling radio and TV personalities what to talk about, to limit their freedom and ours. Rather than fight in the marketplace of ideas, they want to bring back a 1929 radio regulation rule known as the ``Fairness Doctrine.'' Now, don't be fooled. There's nothing fair about it. In the early age of broadcasting, when the majority of news and information was distributed by one or two outlets, it seemed important to promote a competition of viewpoints. That was then. A fairness doctrine today tramples upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It dictates to Americans that in an open, free and flooded marketplace of ideas, they need Washington politicians to sort it all out. Madam Speaker, real freedom means a government that listens to the people, not one that dictates to the people who they must listen to. Let's keep the Fairness Doctrine off our airwaves and in the history books where it belongs.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time and I appreciate his leadership on this. Mr. Chairman, freedom is the foundational principle of our society. Our Founders were champions of this God-given right and charged future generations with eternal vigilance to protect it. We are here today because some very prominent Democrat leaders, including the Senate whip, want Uncle Sam to start telling radio and TV personalities what to talk about, to limit their freedom and ours. Rather than fight in the marketplace of ideas, they want to bring back a 1929 radio regulation known as the Fairness Doctrine, which has nothing to do with fairness. A so-called ``fairness doctrine'' today tramples upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It dictates to Americans that in an open and free and flooded marketplace of ideas, they need Washington politicians to sort it all out. Mr. Chairman, real freedom means a government that listens to the people, not one that dictates to the people whom they must listen to. Let's keep the Fairness Doctrine off our airwaves and in the history books where it belongs.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues, at least on this side of the aisle, for working as diligently as possible to introduce amendments that will result in fiscal responsibility, or at least the start of fiscal responsibility, here in Washington. This amendment is affectionately known as the Hefley amendment. A former Member here from Colorado, Mr. Hefley often introduced an amendment that would reduce the increase in appropriations bills by 1 percent. I suspect we will hear another cry of ``devastating cuts'' from the majority party, but in fact, Mr. Chairman, this is a minimal reduction for the Federal budget, but a huge win for the American people. When we talk about amendments that are reducing appropriately the spending that goes on by the Federal Government, it is always important to remember whose money we are spending. This isn't the government's money. This is the people's money, and they work extremely hard to make certain that they can make their ends meet. And in so doing, they generously, they generously, provide the Federal Government with the resources with which to run our government and our country. It is incumbent upon us to be as responsible as possible with that spending. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we can be more responsible than we are being. We have heard a lot of pronouns bantied about on the floor today, mostly ``I'' and ``you.'' I wish, Mr. Chairman, we would have a few more ``we's,'' because when we work together on behalf of the American people to decrease spending, to responsibly spend, what we do is come together in a way that I think the American people desire us to, and certainly I believe that is one of the messages they sent last November. We have heard also discussions or comments saying this is a big waste of time. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that any time we are fighting on behalf of the American taxpayer, that is not time wasted. I would also suggest that they don't believe that fighting on their behalf to make sure that the Federal Government spends less than is planned by this majority, that that is a waste of time. Now, what is the big picture in this bill? The big picture is that last year the programs under this bill spent $19.5 billion. The committee has come forward with a proposal to spend $21.4 billion, an increase of $1.9 billion, nearly 10 percent. This amendment, this amendment that is before us right now, is to decrease that increase, that nearly 10 percent increase, decrease that increase by 1 percent. So it is not, it is not, something that could be described as a devastating cut. The numbers again: Last year we spent $19.5 billion. The committee proposes $21.4 billion. When this amendment is enacted, we will spend $21.2 billion on behalf of financial services and general government operations. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the American people have lost a great deal of trust, a great deal of trust, in our Federal Government, and part of that is the irresponsible way in which we spend the people's money. This is a small step, a small step forward in order to begin to regain that trust. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, before I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Georgia, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) be allowed to control the time for the remaining portion of the time for the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas is unable to be here this evening, although this is, indeed, his amendment. I would ask unanimous consent that it be identified as such for all proceedings of the House.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would strike section 738 of this legislation, which, as drafted, would have the same effect as language already included in a number of the Democrat majority's other appropriations bills, preventing funds from being spent to conduct public/private competitions. While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to public- sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on their core mission when Congress takes the opportunity to save money through competition away from them. In 2006, Federal agencies ``competed'' only 1.7 percent of their commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire civil workforce. This very small use of competition for services is expected to generate savings of $1.3 billion over the next 10 years. Competitions completed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every dollar spent on competition, with annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion. But the particular language included in this bill is even worse. The underlying language goes further than past Democrat efforts to gut public/private competition by unnecessarily delaying and complicating how the most efficient delivery of commercial activities is determined. This newest attempt to stack the deck against competition for services that can easily be found in the Yellow Pages also creates uneven and duplicative protest rights and intrusive new data requirements, while ignoring the consideration of quality in determining the best source of commercial services for the taxpayer. In short, Mr. Chairman, by allowing this language to remain in the underlying legislation, approximately $200 million in expected annual savings from planned competitions will be placed at risk. Additionally, by removing quality from the list of factors in determining who wins a competition, this bill would double costs in many competitions. In this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, Congress should be looking to use all of the tools it can to find taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of services that are already being provided by thousands of hardworking private companies nationwide. At this point I will insert into the Record a letter of support for this amendment from the Fair Competition Coalition. A portion of that letter reads, This provision will discourage many private-sector firms from participating in the competitive sourcing contracting process. Section 738 would penalize private-sector bidders that offer health insurance benefits to their employees. The Office of Management and Budget reports that the competition under the A-76 process creates an average savings of 15 to 20 percent for the American taxpayer. The Fair Competition Coalition, June 27, 2007. Dear Representative: As you continue consideration of the FY 2008 appropriations bills, I would like to bring to your attention some anticompetitive language that was included in Section 738 of the FY 2008 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. This provision will discourage many private sector firms from participating in the competitive sourcing contracting process, which is being held at most Federal agencies. The members of the Fair Competition Coalition ask that you support an amendment offered by Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) which would strike the Section 738 language from the bill. Section 738 would penalize private sector bidders that offer health insurance benefits to their employees. In an unprecedented intrusion into the competitive process, this provision singles out one benefit element, and ignores the reality of the total compensation packages commonly offered in the private sector. These compensation packages typically include a wide range of health, matching retirement, bonus/ incentive, professional and personal development, and other benefits. It also undermines and ignores unique and innovative health benefits plans, particularly those that are provided by the small business community. Section 738 also would allow employees of the Federal government to protest the award to the private sector. Congress and the Executive Branch have properly excluded Federal employees from challenging agency management decisions in Federal court. Beyond the constitutional questions of whether such action creates the required ``case or controversy,'' the President has properly asserted his responsibility to supervise the ``unitary'' executive branch and opposed establishing ``interested party'' status for these decisions. Already many companies are not pursuing A-76 competitions, and the language in Section 738 will drive companies further away from the process. The Office of Management and Budget reports that the competition under the current A-76 process creates an average savings of 15% to 20% for the American taxpayer. The proven benefits of competitive sourcing are too high to place arbitrary restrictions on the program. We urge you to support effectiveness and efficiency in Government by voting YES to the Sessions amendment. If you have any questions, please contact our Coalition points of contact: Michele Kaplan of the Professional Services Council or Kent Sholars of the Contract Services Association. Sincerely, Aerospace Industries Association, American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, Airport Consultants Council, American Council of Independent Laboratories, American Council of Engineering Companies, American Electronics Association, American Institute of Architects, Associated General Contractors of America, Business Executives for National Security, Construction Management Association of America, Contract Services Association of America. Design Professionals Coalition, Electronic Industries Alliance, Information Technology Association of America, Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors, National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds, National Defense Industrial Association, National Federation Of Independent Business, Professional Services Council, Small Business Legislative Council, Textile Rental Services Association of America, The National Auctioneers Association, United States Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to follow the advice of that letter and support this commonsense taxpayer-first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public-sector union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition available to the government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's comments. I, too, have respect, as well we all do, for all Federal employees. But this is serious business. Spending the taxpayers' money is serious business. And outsourcing does one thing, private contracting does one thing: It provides for an opportunity to save hard-earned taxpayer money. The majority says that they oppose and fight adamantly as they oppose no-bid contracts. So how can be it be consistent to oppose a competitive contracting process that allows private firms the opportunity to have outsource contracts? This is a commonsense amendment. I offer it on behalf of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, fiscally responsible amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield? It is Mr. Sessions' amendment.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. This amendment is what became affectionately known as the Hefley amendment. Mr. Hefley was a former Member of the House and offered a 1 percent decrease in the reduction of the increase on appropriations bills routinely. And he no longer serves with us; so many of us believe that it is an appropriate way to try to bring about some kind of fiscal restraint and fiscal responsibility here in the United States Congress. I think it is important to look at the big picture, and the big picture is that we always have to remind ourselves whose money this is. And there is a sense in this Chamber and in Washington that this money is the government's money, that the government somehow makes it and discovers it and that it ought to just spend it willy-nilly. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, this isn't the government's money; it is the people's money. This money comes to Washington through the hard work of the American taxpayer. And it is imperative that we remember that because only when we remember that will we have that touchstone to make certain we spend it responsibly. What are the big numbers here that we are talking about in the Interior, Environment Appropriations bill? Last year, fiscal year 2007, this bill appropriated $26.4 billion. This year the proposal is to spend $27.6 billion. That is an increase of $1.2 billion, an increase of 9.5 percent, an increase three times the rate of inflation. This amendment would decrease that increase by 1 percent. It would decrease that increase by $276 million. It would trim one penny out of every dollar spent in this appropriations bill. It is the kind of thing that American families all across our Nation do when they find themselves in times when they are spending more than they are taking in, which is what the Federal Government is doing, spending more than we are taking in. This is a responsible amendment. It starts us down that road of being fiscally responsible. It tells the American people that we care about their budget and in caring about their budget, we will be responsible with the Federal budget. It will begin to restore some of that trust that the American people have lost in Washington's ability to restrain spending. So I offer this amendment in good faith. I believe it is an appropriate way to begin the process of gaining back fiscal responsibility here in Washington. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of my good friend from Washington if he has any speakers on this amendment?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have got more than my 20 minutes will be able to fill.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the silence persists. The silence persists on the majority side because they are loathe to defend the spending that is going on here in Washington. Mr. Chairman, I find that particularly offensive to the American people. This is not government's money. It is the American taxpayers' money. It is incumbent upon the party that is proposing to spend billions and billions of dollars to increase the debt ceiling in this Nation over $9 trillion for the first time, to ignore the entitlement spending, to ignore $50 trillion in liability. This is the majority party that is silent, silent when it comes to this kind of spending. So I would urge my colleagues to reconsider their desire not to defend their spending. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Campbell), who is a leader on fiscal responsibility here in the House.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the attempt at defending the remarkable increased spending on the part of the majority party. To describe this amendment as a devastating cut is curious. Only in Washington is a decrease in the increase a cut. It's important that the American people appreciate that the proposal of the majority party is to spend in this bill $27.6 billion. This amendment, if enacted would provide for the spending of $27.4 billion, hardly, Mr. Chairman, a devastating cut. I would also ask my good friend from Washington to simply read the amendment. It talks about an across-the-board cut. The amendment states that ``appropriations made by this Act are hereby reduced in the amount of $276 million.'' That's not an across-the-board cut. That's a 1 percent reduction in the total allocation in this bill. So it is disingenuous of my good friend to make those kinds of comments. I would also say that he says that we need to move quickly. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that any time we spend defending the American taxpayer is time well spent. And then they talk about priorities. Mr. Chairman, the correct priority we have is defending the American taxpayer. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side.