Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend for asking it because it is one of the things that resulted in a 12-year history in this Congress of no increase in taxes. And one of the reasons for that was we required in our rules a super majority to raise taxes. And you are absolutely correct. On that first day there were a lot of rules that changed that determined how the House works. One of the rules that was changed said, no, you don't need a super majority; all you need is a simple majority, which, as you know and as the American people know, means that the majority party can do anything they want in terms of taxes, which was how they were able to pass a budget that includes the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, nearly $400 billion in the future. So I appreciate my good friend's comments and would yield to him if he has another question or comment.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend from Colorado for coming down this evening and sharing his comments and his perspective. It's similar to mine. And the disappointment is shared as well because the American people did expect more. And I think that the numbers that we've seen, Mr. Speaker, and the polls that are out now that demonstrate the impression of the American people of Congress is at its lowest point in decades, that that's reflective of the disappointment that they have in this new majority. So I appreciate your comments. I do just want to end, Mr. Speaker, by highlighting once again what we believe the solutions are. And there are solutions, and they're positive solutions. And they are solutions that we can embrace together, Republicans and Democrats, who truly desire to be fiscally responsible. And they are incorporated in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights at the Federal level. Again, it means that the Federal Government ought not grow faster than the rate of inflation and the increase in population; that every single dollar that goes into the Social Security trust fund ought to be spent on Social Security; that that money ought to be preserved for individuals who send that money to the Federal Government; that a balanced budget occurs without raising taxes. It's very doable. We have demonstrated it time and time again, that you increase revenue to the Federal Government when you decrease taxes. So, a balanced budget amendment without raising taxes. And fundamental and fair tax reform. Our tax system is woefully flawed, and it is a system that is crying out for reform, crying out for repair. It's unfair for people all across the spectrum, and demands, indeed demands, fundamental reform. And finally, a supermajority required for any tax increase, as my friend from Colorado highlighted. We had no tax increase over the 12 years when my party was in charge. And one of the reasons for that was that it required a supermajority to pass a tax increase. And that just makes common sense. If you are going to take more of the hard-earned American taxpayer money, then you ought to do it with significant majorities. Thomas Jefferson, I believe, said that ``You ought not make major changes with minor majorities.'' It's something that I think this majority ought to adhere to. Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying that we live in a wonderful and glorious Nation, a Nation that allows us to be elected and to come and represent the finest people on the face of the Earth. I challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to endeavor to do that in a way that's responsible, that respects the hard work that they do day in and day out, that respects the importance in the correlation between liberty and freedom, and allowing the American people to keep more of their money. When they're able to keep more money, they're more free, they have greater independence and greater liberty. And by so doing, we adhere to fundamental principles that are uniquely American. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I was compelled to come and talk just a little bit about this amendment, which I commend my friend from Texas for offering, because I've been surprised at the rapidity with which the new majority has regained their old stripes that they lost 12-plus years ago. We were sitting in committee the other day and marking or finishing the prospects of a bill that we're passing out of the Education Committee, and it turns out that there was more estimated revenue that came into the Federal Government and was eligible for appropriation by the committee. And so the majority party, within very short order, stated that they had found hundreds of millions of new dollars and they were offering an amendment to recognize that, in fact, they had found hundreds of millions of new dollars; and then, within seconds, appropriated or authorized the spending of the hundreds of millions of new dollars. So I was somewhat bemused by that and made the comment at the time that I was pleased that they had found the hundreds of millions of new dollars; I was somewhat surprised that they had spent it so rapidly. And so I would draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that an issue, a process by which the Federal Government has been utilizing to save hundreds of millions of dollars and, yes, billions of dollars, as stated by the gentleman from Texas, that of providing for competitive bidding, is an appropriate process. It's an appropriate process for our Federal Government to use. It's a responsible process so that we may spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars wisely. And so I'm distressed that this bill would include a section that would preclude competitive bidding. As everyone knows and understands kind of inherently, there are many, many things that the private sector can do much more reasonably and responsibly and efficiently and without significant expenditure of resources than can the public sector. And so it just makes no sense to me, and certainly no sense to my constituents back in the Sixth District of Georgia, that we would adopt a new measure that would provide that we ought not have competitive bidding. But I think it points out a significant distinction, a difference between the two parties. The minority party believes that it's appropriate to have competitive bidding, that it's appropriate to utilize the full robust nature of the private sector whenever possible, in some instances it's not possible, but whenever possible in order to save hard-earned taxpayer money. The majority party apparently believes, given that this is included in the bill, that that's not an appropriate concern of the Federal Government, that we ought not be looking for all efficiencies possible, and I think that's an appropriate distinction to draw. I think it's a conclusion that, obviously, Mr. Chairman, the American people will draw given this provision in the bill. It's a distinction that I would suggest the American people weren't aware of when they went to the polls last November. It's a distinction I do believe, however, they will be paying attention to as future elections arise. But I just want to commend my friend from Texas for this remarkably commonsense amendment, for appropriately reviewing the legislation and identifying those areas where, in fact, savings could occur; and part of our responsibility certainly is providing money for the necessary activities of the Federal Government, but it's also part of our responsibility to be as prudent as we can with hard-earned taxpayer money. I also want to commend my other friend from Texas, who was here just before me, talking about the importance of providing the distinction in the majority party already passing a budget that has the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation. That, again, is evidence of their return to the previous stripes that they had 12-plus years ago. I am pleased to join my colleague from Texas in this commonsense, wise, fiscally prudent, and fiscally responsible amendment. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I find the most recent comment of our good friend on the other side rather amusing, as the President is charged with executing the policies that this Congress puts in place; and heaven forbid, that he or whoever might occupy that office, might have certain priorities that they would want to bring about to, in fact, execute the policies that have been passed by this Congress. But be that as it may, I want to commend my good friend from Texas for bringing this amendment forward. I think that the amendment itself highlights truly the fallacy of the process that we're under. And that is, as my good friend from New Jersey just mentioned, that we fail in this Congress, at least the majority party fails in this Congress to prioritize spending in a way that passes a test that I believe the American people would be proud of or be pleased with. The point isn't, as my good friend from Indiana has stated, the specifics of the project that he identified. That is not the point of the debate that we would rise to engage in. The point is that when is enough enough? When is it that we, as a Federal Government, take hard- earned tax money out of the pocketbooks and the back pockets of Americans and say, okay, that's all we need. Clearly, this new majority has said that we can't get enough. We can't get enough. And consequently, they have adopted, in this past 6 months, a budget that includes the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, the largest tax increase in the history of America. And I have friends at home who say, well, that wouldn't be so bad if, in fact, they were solving real problems. But, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, the challenge of the Federal spending, the challenge of the budgetary process is the automatic programs, the entitlement programs, the mandatory programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which comprise 54, 55 percent of our Federal budget. And the budget that this new majority passed that included the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation did nothing, said nothing about how to reform those programs; how to make certain that Social Security, which is a program that is challenged to be charitable, challenged from a process standpoint, to be able to provide a safety net for those young citizens across our Nation who are in their 20s and 30s. It is a program that will not have those kinds of resources without structural change, and so the majority party passes a budget with the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation and says nothing, it is mute, as it relates to Social Security reform. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that is what the American people sent us to Washington to do. I think they sent us to Washington to solve real problems. As a physician prior to coming to Congress, one of the huge challenges that we face is the provision of health care and health insurance for our citizens. And, consequently, the other two limbs of the budgetary challenge that we have, Medicare and Medicaid, huge problems, huge challenges from a financial standpoint. They require structural change. However, this majority passed in their budget, again the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, nearly $400 billion, and said nothing, nothing about structural reform to those programs that are imperative for the healthiness of our Nation. So when we talk about our concern regarding spending, it is not necessarily the specifics of a given paragraph within a spending bill. The specifics are the overall amount of money that we are spending as a Federal Government and the fact that we are ignoring, this Congress is ignoring, the true financial challenges that face us as a Nation. So I rise to commend my friend from Texas for offering an amendment that I think brings focus to where the debate ought to be, and that is to challenge each and every Member of this body and each and every Member of the Senate to make certain that before we end our time here this fiscal year, to make certain that the budget for fiscal year 2008 is as responsible as it can be, that we address appropriately those huge financial challenges that we have as a Nation and be much more responsible with taxpayer money and make certain that we allow Americans to keep their hard-earned taxpayer money in their back pocket and in their pocketbooks.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I was compelled to come down to just comment about some of the information that we've heard from the other side regarding issues not necessarily related to this amendment, because they broadened the debate significantly to talk about the deficit. And Mr. Chairman, as you well know, the deficit has been decreasing significantly for reasons that I would like to touch on a little bit. They also talked about the issue of the work that they had accomplished, that this majority had accomplished. And they talk about decreasing gas prices. Well, in fact, what their gas bill did, Mr. Chairman, as you recall is to increase taxes on United States oil companies. Sounds good maybe in some districts, I don't know; mine is not terribly interested in anybody paying more taxes. But they increased taxes on United States oil companies. Now that bill sits in the Senate, thank goodness, because hopefully the Senate will be able to resolve it and correct it so that the actual policy of this Congress on gas prices will indeed be to bring them down. It takes greater responsibility to do that. If in fact that were to become law, then what we would do under the direction of this majority party is to decrease the ability for American oil companies to produce American oil, and we would increase our reliance and our dependency on foreign oil; not the greatest energy plan, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest. They also talked about assisting kids' education, college education. We have that as a goal, certainly. We think it's appropriate to provide for greater resources for American citizens to attend higher education. What does their bill do, though, Mr. Chairman? Again, it sits in the Senate, so hopefully we will have the Senate correct that. But what their bill does is to ratchet down very gradually the interest rate that students pay on loans to go to college and keeps them at half their current rate for 6 months, Mr. Chairman, and then, boom, right back up to where they were. Well, Mr. Chairman, that isn't leadership either. Now, this chart right here, Mr. Chairman, talks about the increasing Federal revenue. But this red line here could be jobs, it could be increasing Federal revenue, it could be economic development. And there was a remarkable thing that occurred in 2003 that made it so that that line goes up appropriately. Thank goodness, the American people say. Appropriately, Federal revenues increase, economic development increases, jobs increase. And what happened in 2003 was the culmination of appropriate tax reductions for the American people. And what does this majority want to do? It wants to take that line back down. Because what they've done is passed a budget that reverses every single tax reduction, appropriate tax reduction, for the American people. Mr. Chairman, that is not the kind of leadership, I don't think, the American people deserve, nor is it the type of leadership that they desire. So, when we broaden this debate, it's appropriate, because the American people, Mr. Chairman, the American people are watching, and what they see is a majority party that is terribly interested in making certain that the American people are taxed to a greater degree so that they ostensibly have more money to be able to spend on their pet programs. My good friend says that it's only folks who make hundreds of millions of dollars who will have their taxes go up. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not the case, as you well know. Taxes will increase for virtually every single American. Anybody who pays taxes now, under this new majority if they get their way, will have increased taxes. That's not the kind of leadership I believe the American people voted for in November, it is not the kind of leadership that we would provide, it is not the kind of leadership that the American people deserve. So, I am pleased that my good friends on the other side have broadened the debate because it results in the opportunity to bring into focus greater clarity to these budget bills, greater clarity to these appropriations bills, and makes certain that the American people are paying attention to the kind of leadership that this new majority is offering, or the lack of leadership they're offering.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield to my friend from New Jersey.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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. I thank the Chair, and I thank the leadership for the opportunity to present this amendment. This amendment is very simple. It transfers $50 million from the 1990 BRAC account and puts $22 million into the Veterans Health Administration and Medical Services account. The proposal for the 1990 BRAC account is $50 million above the Department of Defense request. As has been talked about with the previous amendment, it is nigh impossible to be spending more than the request. The money that is in the request is used for environmental cleanup associated with previous BRAC-based closings, and my amendment would make the 1990 BRAC account reflect the Defense Department request and place $22 million of these funds in health care for our veterans. The amendment as scored by CBO is outlay neutral which is the reason for the difference in the figures. While cleaning up after base closings is indeed important, the unrequested money, as has been mentioned, would be very difficult to spend and would be better spent, I believe, by providing better health care for our returning service men and women. The conflict we are in has left many soldiers with lifelong injuries, and veterans are acquiring lasting health care. As a physician, I am well aware of the fact that traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder are the signature conditions from our current conflict. As we are learning more about traumatic brain injury and PTSD, we find that more and more of our soldiers are suffering from these injuries. I believe it is imperative that we ensure that as much funding as possible is available to go for important veterans health care. I believe this amendment to be a fiscally responsible amendment that ensures that our veterans are taken care of in the finest possible manner. I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's comments, and I applaud the work he has done to increase funding for veterans health care, sincerely. I don't recall, specifically, requests to the committee; but I am certainly on record in multiple areas across this Congress in urging increased funding for health care. As a physician, I appreciate the need for increased funding for health care across all areas of our budget. My understanding regarding this provision in the bill is that the $50 million increase over the DOD request is, as I understood it, money that would not be able to be spent in fiscal year 2008. Consequently, that was the reason we requested or proposed in this amendment that the money come from that. So removing $50 million from there, based on outlays by CBO, would stipulate that $22 million was available; and it is my respected request to my colleagues that we place that money for veterans health care for the obvious benefits to all. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the chairman yielding. I would hope that we wouldn't impugn an individual's motives for bringing amendments forward. My motive is sincere. I believe it is appropriate to increase funding for veterans health care as much as possible, and it was my understanding, and we can disagree about whether or not the funds would be available to be spent in fiscal year 2008, and we may have a legitimate disagreement about that, but I would hope that we wouldn't impugn an individual's motives.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I commend you for the increase in health care spending. The $22 million comes from removing the $50 million that the Defense Department didn't request in the account, and then it works out to be $22 million based on outlays.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I think I mentioned in my comments that the increase in traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress syndrome that we are seeing with the conflict that we are currently in obviously warrants as much funding as we can make available to our veterans who are serving us so proudly.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on this Flag Day we celebrate liberty. On this Flag Day, we celebrate democracy. And on this Flag Day, we're hopeful that the majority party will recognize and honor democracy and liberty by allowing all Members of the House, Republican and Democrat, the right to see and to know everything in appropriations bills, spending bills, before we vote. That's what our constituents expect, and that's what they demand. These past 2 days have been an eye-opener for America, clearly demonstrating that Republicans are the champions of fiscal responsibility and honest debate as we've fought for democracy on the floor of this House. Transparency and accountability in spending will confirm for the American people that new leadership is needed to preserve not just the Federal budget, but the family budget as well; and the American people are watching.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object. I know that we have been discussing this for a long time, and I appreciate the tolerance of all involved and I am sorry that, using a word that was used before, that you have to endure this, but I have three very specific questions. The chair of the Appropriations Committee in his initial comments said about the agreement that has been worked out, that it has not been signed or not been agreed to because there was an issue that had yet to be worked out. Did I understand the gentleman correctly?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate that. My second question is: The earmarks for these two bills, Homeland Security and Military Construction/Quality of Life, when might we expect to see those or deal with those before the House?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. The final question I have is in the past it has appeared that the agreement between the majority party and the minority party regarding the unanimous consent and time limits on appropriations bills has tended to be during the process of the debate, and if the debate was moving along expeditiously, there was no need for a unanimous consent agreement. My question is: Is it the intent to operate traditionally as has been done, or is the intent to adopt a unanimous consent agreement prior to the bill being taken up?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The majority leader may be able to assist.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. And I thank the leader, and I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Do the rules not stipulate that the Chair is to be an impartial arbiter of the proceedings of the House?