Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank Mr. Carter for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to prevent further delay in the construction of border fencing as prescribed in the Secure Fence Act. Last Congress, Republicans responded to public opinion and national need and authorized the creation of more than 700 miles of fence along the southern border. Instead of providing resources for the border fencing and surveillance, however, the majority has crafted a lengthy list of reporting requirements to delay the building of the fence. One requirement would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to wait before taking any border security action that warrants the use of environmental waiver authority. This invites frivolous litigation and inhibits the Department's ability from addressing vulnerabilities. Another requirement would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to solicit local advice and support before constructing infrastructure. This gives communities veto authority over Federal policy to control the border, including some sanctuary cities. The American people are watching Congress and what it is doing on immigration reform. The American people are looking to trust the Federal Government again. The American people are looking to trust the Federal Government again to live up to its promises and enforce the rule of law. The provisions of this act undermine the people's trust and signals that it is business as usual in Washington, that it's not serious about dealing with our immigration crisis. Many believe that the clear goal of this bill is not to fund border security. This amendment will go a long way toward moving us in the right direction.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. No, sir.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I look forward again to a spirit of debate today on an issue that's of the highest importance, I believe, to the American people. Before we get into the substance of the amendment, I thought it might be appropriate to review a few items of discussion as we closed last evening. We had some good friends on the other side who talked about all of this being ``a waste of time.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, I am here to tell you that my colleagues and I believe that any time that we can fight on behalf of the American people for transparency and for accountability and, yes, for democracy, that that is not a waste of time. We heard last evening that our discussion points on this appropriations bill, which spends billions of hard-earned taxpayer money, that it was long on process and short on policy. Well, Mr. Chairman, our policy regarding the earmark issue, which has now grabbed the attention of the entire Nation, our policy was complete transparency and an opportunity not just to be informed about earmarks, but to have an up or down vote, an up or down vote and the opportunity to vote on each individual special project. That is an apparent novel thought to our new majority, and we would encourage them to visit the rule that we had in place prior to the change in leadership. We also heard last evening that we weren't hearing any facts by the minority party. Well, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that their earmark policy, the majority party's earmark policy is simply a slush fund to spend money as they or one individual may deem fit. As we revisit this second-order amendment, I think it's important for the American people to appreciate and for our colleagues to appreciate that what this amendment would do would be to decrease spending by the majority party by about $8.5 million. Mr. Chairman, that's $8.5 million in savings to the American people. Now, I know to some here in Washington that may seem like a paltry sum, but $8.5 million is a lot of money. It's a lot of money, and it's appropriate for us to be discussing how that money ought be spent. The chairman of the subcommittee said yesterday what we needed was a reality check about this amount of money that was in the bill. He said that the majority party consulted with the Office of Executive Counsel, and this is exactly the amount of money that they said they needed. Well, Mr. Chairman, we consulted some folks, too. We consulted the American taxpayer. The American taxpayer said that we are spending too much money, and that they want greater oversight on the amount of money that this Congress spends of their hard-earned tax money. Mr. Chairman, this new majority ran on a policy of openness and honesty and candor, and I would suggest that this is hardly a process that could be considered as embracing openness or honesty or candor. If we examine the process that's proposed by the majority party, it would allow appropriations bills to have a line in them. Every appropriations bill would have a line in it, it would say ``trust us, just trust us.'' Any Member that then wanted a special project or an earmark would write a request to the Appropriations Chair, the Appropriations Chair would then decide if that project had merit, not the House, the Appropriations Chair, and then we would be informed. No opportunity to identify that particular project, projects would simply be disclosed. We would be given information. Well, Mr. Chairman, this issue isn't about disclosure. It's not just about knowing what's in the bill. It is about having the opportunity, as our constituents would desire, for us to debate the issue, for us to debate each of those special projects, for us to deliberate on them. It would be an opportunity for us to follow the rules of the House. It would be an opportunity for transparency, and a much greater opportunity for accountability. So, Mr. Chairman, this is about ideology, yes, about who ought to be better able to spend the hard-earned taxpayers' money, whether it's Washington or whether it's our constituents. And it's about a slush fund that we are beginning to get a sense is recurring in bill after bill, and in these appropriations bills, a slush fund in every bill that would allow the majority party to determine where those special projects would be funded. So what's the solution? What's the solution? We had a long debate yesterday, a long discussion yesterday. And I think it is important that we put on the table the solution that would be most appropriate, and that is, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, a moratorium. Let's have a moratorium on all earmarks. Let's make it so that we do what the American people, what our constituents would desire, which is to get together and solve this challenge that we have. It's not a Republican challenge or a Democrat challenge, it's an American challenge: How do we most wisely and most responsibly spend the American taxpayer money? I would support a moratorium. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment as we learn and work to responsibly spend taxpayer money.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would say to my colleagues, here we go again with Orwellian democracy, which is alive and here on the floor of the House with the majority party saying one thing and doing another. They promised us a more transparent process, they promised us a process that had greater accountability; and in fact, what we are getting is something completely the opposite. I would note also that we are coming to the floor now with the first appropriations bill which is 1 month later than when we brought our appropriations bills to the floor last year. I am sorry that the Chair of appropriations has left the floor. He made the comment that this would be a more responsible earmark process. He said he would take all of the requests and would add, quote, ``virtually every earmark,'' unquote, would be included in the bill. Well, that is interesting. What that process does is make the Chair of the Appropriations Committee the judge and the jury, the sole judge and the sole jury for every single special project. I would prefer there would be no special projects, but it appears that the Appropriations Chair is going to be the one to determine whether or not your project is worthy. Those that have already been dropped into bills brought before this Congress give us no comfort. There appears to be significant favoritism that is being played, significant politics being played. And the threats that have been given by a Member on the majority side to a Member on the minority side, if he didn't support an earmark, give us no comfort. We will get 30 days to review. Well, that is a wonderful thing, with no opportunity, as the gentleman from Arizona said, to have any vote on any earmark. Mr. Speaker, that is not greater transparency or greater accountability. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, Well, if you don't like an earmark, vote against the bill, with no ability to get to a specific egregious program that so angers the American people. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is Orwellian democracy at its finest, doing one thing and saying exactly the opposite. This ought to be an interesting period of time as we move through the appropriations bills. It ought to be a very interesting time as we move through a process that has turned into a sham. It ought to be a very interesting time; and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the American people are, indeed, paying attention.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to commend the gentleman from California for offering this amendment. I think that at the beginning of this first appropriations bill of the 110th Congress, which I might add is 1 month after the first appropriation bill that we, when we were in the majority last year, that we moved through the House. So the time is without a doubt getting late, but I commend the majority for finally bringing this to the floor. But I want to commend the gentleman from California because this is the type of amendment that sets the tone about what kind of responsibility we will bring to this House for all of our appropriations processes over the next number of weeks. I want to commend the gentleman for this amendment. I appreciate the fact that he has identified an area where, yes, it's only $10 million, but $10 million in my area is a fair amount of money. So I want to commend the gentleman for bringing the amendment to the floor. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina for a response.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman pointing out the increase by 7.5 percent. Again, I would like to just draw the House's attention to the fact that this may just be $9.5 million, but as I mentioned, $9.5 million is a fair amount of money. I appreciate also the gentleman coming to the floor earlier and talking about broadening this debate. He talked about what he called the war deficit. He brought minimum wage into this debate, brought spending into this debate. That's a wonderful thing. Because, yes, that's what we're talking about. We are talking about spending hard- earned taxpayer money. So no amount of money is too small to discuss and to bring light to. I would implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to, yes, look at the expansive nature of these appropriations bills, to look at the increase in the amount of money that this majority plans on spending over past Congresses. I also would ask my colleagues to look at the process. Because the debate has been expanded, I think it's an appropriate time to talk about the issue regarding earmarks, special projects. We have now a policy apparently in this House of Representatives, that allows the majority party or, actually, one Member of the majority party, to determine when he decides which earmark, which special project, warrants support by the entire House or warrants the opportunity to even have a vote on a special project. But can you have a vote on a specific special project? No, no. What we will have, our special projects that are the pet special projects of one individual, brought into a conference report, and no opportunity, no opportunity for any Member of this body to point out that, in fact, that ought to have a particular vote, that we ought to have individuals stand up. I support the amendment of the gentleman from California.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for his amendment, drawing attention once again to the amount of spending in this and, I am certain, in other appropriations bills as we go forward. I think it is important for the Chamber and for all of those who might be watching to appreciate that spending is, indeed, the disease that infects Washington. It is the disease that makes it so that Americans all across this Nation no longer trust this Congress to do the right thing when it comes to being good stewards of their hard- earned taxpayer money. In fact, this Congress so far has increased spending, authorization for spending, by over $50 billion already. And instead of being more responsible with the appropriations bills they are bringing forward, in fact we find tens of billions of dollars in more spending. Now, the consequence of that is somehow you have to pay for that. What we have seen by our friends in the majority is adopting a budget that will be, if not the largest tax increase in the history of the Nation, the second largest tax increase, depending on how you do the numbers, but hundreds of billions of dollars. Mr. Chairman, I know we have good friends who talk about the new direction that they brought to Washington, given the last election. Mr. Chairman, I am here to tell you, that new direction is backwards, and it is backwards to a time of tax and spend that, frankly, the American people don't favor. One of the things the American people do favor, however, is sunshine. And they favor it for all of the activities that we engage in here in Congress, sunshine in the processes that we have, and sunshine in making sure that votes are recorded in committee, sunshine in terms of the debate that goes on. And, yes, Mr. Chairman, sunshine in terms of the money that this Congress spends, which is why it is so distressing that we have a new policy on behalf of the Appropriations Committee and the majority that allows for hidden spending, less transparency, less accountability when it comes to something that the American people care dearly about; and that is earmarks, special projects, or ``pork projects,'' as many people know them by back home. We have been harping on this because it is such a change, such a remarkable change in policy and in procedure here on the House floor and within the House of Representatives. And it's not just our opinion. It's not just our opinion. There are newspapers that have provided their opinion all across this Nation, that have agreed. They have said that the process that's been adopted, which would allow for one individual, one individual in this Chamber, to determine which special projects would be supported and to determine which projects would be included in a conference report, not brought to the floor in the usual appropriations process, not so that my colleagues here can stand up and say, I don't think we ought to be spending hard-earned taxpayer money on that project. In fact, I think I feel so strongly about that that we ought to vote on it, and people ought to be held accountable. It's the kind of vote that when we were in the majority we allowed because it's an appropriate vote to allow, and we even went further in the last Congress and adopted a rule that said if earmarks, if special projects were put in in a conference report, when you only get to vote on the overall bill itself, you can't pick out individual projects. If they were put in that conference report, then a Member of the House on either side of the aisle could raise a point of order and say, we ought not be taking that up because it violates the rules of the House, and had an opportunity to highlight, to bring a specific vote for a specific measure. Well, Mr. Chairman, that apparently is no longer the case, from what we hear by Members in the majority party now, and it's not only our opinion that it's the bad way to do the House's business, it's the opinion all across this Nation. The Wisconsin State Journal recently wrote an editorial and said, with this maneuver, it will prevent the public and most lawmakers from questioning earmarks until it's too late. That means you can't do anything about it. St. Louis Post-Dispatch said, But in a slick maneuver, they will keep them hidden from public scrutiny. In a slick maneuver, they will keep them hidden from public scrutiny. Mr. Chairman, that's not the kind of leadership that the American people want. That's not the kind of responsible spending of hard-earned taxpayer money that the people want. That's not what they voted for in November. They didn't vote for more hidden rooms. They didn't vote for less scrutiny. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and to adopt any amendment that decreases spending in this appropriations bill.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this issue, and I commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina for presenting this issue. The hour is getting late, but I think it is extremely helpful and extremely clarifying for those watching to appreciate that there is a distinction between the different folks rising this evening and drawing attention to the amount of spending. The gentleman who is presenting this bill said in all sincerity that this bill wasn't about earmarks and it wasn't about ideology. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would beg to differ. It is all about ideology, and it certainly has a lot to do with earmarks. The ideology we talk about being present in this bill and every other appropriations bill that I have seen that has been filed so far is that there is one side that believes that spending ought to increase to a fare-thee-well. And there is the other side which believes there ought to be responsibility to that spending. We have already seen the majority party, so far this year, increase authorization for spending by over 50 billion new dollars. We have already seen the new majority adopt a budget which has, depending on who you talk to, the largest tax increase, or the second largest tax increase, in the history of our Nation. That tax increase is to pay for the spending. So, yes, Mr. Chairman, it is all about ideology. It is also about earmarks because what we have been presented is a new policy by the majority party that allows for a slush fund, a slush fund for earmarks in virtually any appropriations bill that comes to the floor. So I commend my colleague from Georgia who spoke just before me and offered a solution, an opportunity to bring greater sunshine and greater light to those earmarks. I think that was a well-thought-out proposal. I suspect there are people watching and saying, what is it that we desire? Why is it that we are drawing attention to what we believe to be an egregious rule? Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest what we desire is a decrease in irresponsible spending. It is that irresponsible spending that is causing tax bills for Americans to mount up to unacceptable levels. And, consequently, we believe the slush fund for earmarks ought to be done with, ought to go away. The American people ought to know who is spending their hard-earned tax money, and they ought to be able to hold those folks accountable. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the solution to the dilemma in which we currently find ourselves is to have the chairman of Appropriations or somebody in leadership on the majority side say, we won't do that, we won't bring about any earmarks in a conference committee that aren't agreed to by each and every Member of the House individually. Individually, that's what we proposed. In fact, that is what we enacted in our own bill, in our own rules last session. Mr. Chairman, there is a solution to this. There is an opportunity for us to move onward and make it so the American people are able to have their say, to have each and every one of their Representatives have their say about the kind of spending that is going on here in Washington. And it is not just our side. If you take the words of the Members of the new majority from the not-too-distant past, after the recent election, when the the majority leader said, ``We are going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of night, and the public and other Members can see what is being done.'' That is a quote. Here is another quote. ``Words will not do it. I have a good relationship with Representative Roy Blunt. I have a good relationship with Representative John Boehner. We'll work together. We'll include them in decision-making. ``To the extent that we create an atmosphere of mutual respect, the American people will feel more comfortable with Congress.'' Mr. Chairman, I suspect you know what I know, and that is that the recent data on the respect with which the American people hold this Congress and this majority is at an all-time low. And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that one of the reasons that it is at an all-time low is because of the kind of policies that are being put into place by this majority that make it so that light cannot shine on the amount of spending that is being done in this Congress. I urge adoption of the amendment. I urge a change to the earmark policy.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Has the Chairman not said----

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have a point of order.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The gentleman who is currently possessing the time has violated the rules by addressing Members other than the Chair.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. A precedent motion was offered after the gentleman moved to strike the last word. The motion was that the Committee do now rise.

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

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