Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the Chair of the Republican Study Committee and the champion of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side, if I may?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair. I just would point out to my good friend from Ohio that no specific programs are identified in this decrease in the increase. So to identify specific programs is a spurious argument, truly. I would also say that this points out fundamentally the difference between the two parties. We believe fundamentally that individuals spend their money more wisely than the government. It is clear that the majority party does not believe that. They believe that they spend the taxpayer money much more wisely. We just think that is a fundamental difference. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), on this appropriate amendment of fiscal responsibility.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think this has been a healthy debate. I appreciate my good friend from Colorado for yielding. I want to commend as well my friend from Washington, the subcommittee chairman, for the work that he has done and the ranking member for work that they have done. The subcommittee chairman said that there was nothing personal in his opposition to this amendment, and that's true. There is absolutely nothing personal here in this Chamber. But this discussion is personal to the American taxpayer, and it's all about priorities. We have offered today a series of amendments. One amendment said we ought to spend exactly what we spent last year, tens of billions of dollars in this area of the government. The majority party declined to accept that amendment. Then we offered an amendment that said instead of increasing spending by 9.5 percent, we ought to increase spending by 8.5 percent, and they said, no, they weren't interested in that. So the gentlelady from Colorado says, well, if you can't save $1 out of every $100, how about 50 cents? How about 50 cents out of every $100? What Congress is spending in this appropriations bill and in every appropriations bill, because of the increase in spending, is money that we don't have. It's money that the Congress doesn't have. This money represents the debt that Congress is burdening on future generations, our children, and our grandchildren. It is simply time, it's time for Washington to stop finding ways to spend more money. I commend the gentlelady from Colorado for her amendment. I urge my colleagues to support her amendment by decreasing by one half of 1 percent the increase in this appropriations bill.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership on this issue and for bringing important distinctions to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question, though, of the body, and it's curious what's going on here. The chairman of the subcommittee yielded back his time, didn't even want to engage. Can you hear it, Mr. Chairman? That's silence. That's silence on the part of the majority party because they aren't even interested in defending the spending that is in their bill. Before I came to Congress, I was a physician. I knew that I needed to listen to patients in order to make the right diagnosis. Well, the right diagnosis, Mr. Chairman, here, is that Washington doesn't have a revenue problem; it's got a spending problem. And the ways that the Democrats are moving forward with their spending spree of 2007 are very frightening, as the gentleman before me spoke. There are a couple of ways to pay for it. One, you can charge it. And so they've increased the debt ceiling. They've increased the debt ceiling to over $9 trillion for the first time ever in the history of this Nation. The other way you can pay for it is to tax folks. Mandatory withholding, tax increases. And already we've seen the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation adopted by this majority party. Mr. Chairman, if that were my record, I wouldn't want to talk about it either. I wouldn't want to talk about it either. So I want to commend my friend from Ohio who is standing tall for fiscal responsibility. It's clear that there's a distinction between the majority party and the minority party. And the minority party says, the Republicans say, we believe in fiscal responsibility. We believe that we can hold the line on spending to holding it to where it was last year.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, given the discrepancy in the times, to equalize the time, I will reserve my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), a champion for fiscal responsibility and fiscal reform in Washington.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reserving the right to object, if I may ask a question as to the form of the unanimous consent request, is it my understanding that this 20 minutes would apply to every amendment to be offered hereafter?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I withdraw my reservation.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. This amendment would reduce the EPA operations and administrations budget by $3.884 million and increase the EPA's science and technology homeland security water security initiative by that same amount. This area of the EPA program was decreased by $3.884 million below the President's request and $9 million below 2007 appropriations levels. The operations and administrative appropriations has been increased by $40.8 million from the 2007 level, although that's the administration's request and I commend the committee for meeting that request.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman recognizing the importance of this initiative. I thank him very much. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the individual's understanding and recognizing the importance of this initiative.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to thank my friend from Texas for his leadership on the Rules Committee and on this issue of wanting and demanding what the American people want, and that is an open process. I oppose this rule because I believe, Madam Speaker, that it stifles the ability for Members of this House to represent their constituents. The reason that it stifles them is because it doesn't allow for the kind of debate and the kind of voting on issues that we've just heard about. This is a good bill. I want to commend my classmate, Representative Wasserman Schultz, and Representative Wamp for their work; but it's not a perfect bill. And so we ought to move in the direction of making it a more perfect bill by allowing amendments, other ideas from this House to come forward. Madam Speaker, I'm sorry to say that this is just another example of what I have come to know and phrase as ``Orwellian democracy'' by this new majority. It's Orwellian democracy because they say one thing and they do exactly the opposite. What did they say? Well, what they said is that they would assure a fair and open process. Before the last election, Speaker Pelosi said, ``Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voice is silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.'' So what's different now, Madam Speaker? Is it political expediency, or is it a broken promise? The chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, said before, ``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.'' So what's changed, Madam Speaker? What's different now? Is it political expediency, or is it a broken promise? Mr. McGovern, a member of the Rules Committee, 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, 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 deliberations on this House floor.'' So what's different now, Madam Speaker? Is it political expediency, or a broken promise? Democratic Caucus Chair, Mr. Emanuel, said before, ``Let's have an up or down vote. Don't be scared. Don't hide behind some little rule. Come on out here. Put it on the table. 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 or down vote. You can put your votes right up there, and then the American people can see what it's all about.'' So what's different, Madam Speaker? Political expediency, or a broken promise? I offered an amendment that would be debated on this floor that would have reduced the amount of spending by 1 percent. It would have saved the American taxpayer $31 million. Now, $31 million may not seem like a lot in Washington, but back where I come from and across this Nation, $31 million is a lot of money. It would say to the American people this is a step in the right direction for fiscal responsibility. That was said before, what was said before by the now majority leader, Steny Hoyer, who said, ``We want to get the budget deficit under control. We have said fiscal responsibility was necessary, but we're not going to be hoisted on the torrent of fiscal responsibility.'' Madam Speaker, rules aren't rules if you only follow them when you want to, and choosing when to do so is breaking a promise. An open promise shouldn't just be something that you talk about on the campaign trail. Madam Speaker, Americans understand that promises made on the campaign trail and promises that aren't kept in the heat of debate on the House floor are broken promises. And the American people are paying attention.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. This amendment is what is affectionately referred to as the Hefley amendment. Former Congressman Hefley, who served in this body, offered an across-the-board decrease in spending in appropriations bills by 1 percent in an effort to try to bring about some fiscal responsibilities. I commend him at this time. I also want to recognize Congresswoman Blackburn, Congressman Hensarling, Congressman Feeney and Congressman Campbell for also offering similar amendments and commend them for their fiscal responsibility. There has been a lot of talk about money, and properly so, during this appropriation season. It is important, Mr. Chairman, however, to remember where that money comes from. That money comes from hardworking American taxpayers. It is their money. It is not the government's money. It is their money. It is easy here in Washington to lose sight of that fact. But it is imperative that we remember with great responsibility and act with great reason as we move and spend the hard working American taxpayers' money. The big picture in this bill is that last year in this area of the Federal budget we spent as a Nation $31.2 billion. That is with a B, Mr. Chairman, $31.2 billion. The proposal today is to spend $34.2 billion. That is an increase of 9.5 percent. This amendment would decrease that by 1 percent. By 1 percent. One penny out of every dollar savings for the American people. A savings of $342 million. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is a small step, a symbolic step but is an important step, to let the American people know that, yes, we do believe that we respect the hard work that they do, and we also believe that it is important for Washington to get its fiscal house in order. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I am pleased to have the support of so many of my colleagues in this House on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those comments. However, only in Washington by this majority party can a cut be an actual increase of $2.56 billion. Adopting this amendment would result in an increase of $2.56 billion. It is just a decrease in the slope of the increase. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair, if the Chair might opine as to words that might offend and be inappropriate to the decorum of the House being spoken, and the Chair might want to admonish individuals to refrain from making those kind of statements.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. And I thank the Chair for that.