Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman and the comments that he makes about every single tax that we pay with every single thing we do is so apt because this new majority seems to believe that, well, in everything they do, seem to believe that they have got a better idea. They've got better solutions. They know better than the American people about how they ought to do most anything, and especially how they ought to spend their money. And when I talk to my good friends on the other side of the aisle who appear to be interested in making certain that America sustains this economic vitality that it has, and you ask them, well, how did that vitality come about, and you point to things like this chart demonstrates, which is where job creation was before the appropriate tax reductions and what happened afterward, it's as clear as the nose on your face or the drawing before you. Before tax cuts were put in place, there was a staggering job growth and mostly negative job creation. But something happened in 2003, as you pointed out. Something happened. And it resulted in huge, significant job growth, job increase, across this Nation. Literally 49 of the 50 States have increased employment since 2003. And one would think that if you had the responsibility for determining what the economic policies of this Nation ought to be that you would look at that point and you would say, well, it would help me understand what happened then in order to continue the economic growth that we have seen. And it is clear that this job creation, this job growth, was a direct result of allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. So it is without doubt that we need to continue those policies, in fact, to increase the ability for Americans to keep their own money and, therefore, continue the wonderful growth that we have had. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Exactly right.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's contributing this afternoon and his perspective. And it is so appropriate and so uplifting, frankly, to have Members in the House of Representatives who understand and appreciate the connection between cause and effect, the connection between the actions that we take here and then what happens out in the real world. And it is one of those things, Madam Speaker, that frustrates my constituents and I know it frustrates Americans all across this Nation who are concerned that there are fewer and fewer individuals in this House of Representatives that appreciate that connection. I want to mention just a few more items as it relates to the economy and as it relates to our current situation and, hopefully, what will occur with the policies that are adopted by this House of Representatives and this Congress. This is a chart, Madam Speaker, that demonstrates the unemployment rate. And as you will recall, at the beginning of this decade, the unemployment rate was increasing significantly and got up to almost 6.5 percent in the early part of 2003. If you were to look at this graph and to believe and appreciate that a low unemployment rate means a vibrant economy, that people are working, that people are being able to support their family, that they are able to change jobs, that they are able to move up in the job market, that is what happens when you have a low unemployment rate. And anything below about 5 percent is considered to be an extremely vibrant economy. So something happened in 2003 to result in a steady decline in the unemployment rate over the last 3 or 4 years. And what happened in 2003, again, is that we, Congress, and this administration allowed for Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. Now, when you look at that, it is an important thing to appreciate. It is also important to recognize that cause and effect. But it is also important to look at some other numbers and kind of dig a little deeper into what was the consequence, what happened with the decreases in taxes. As I mentioned, job growth, 88,000 new jobs were gained in just this past April, with nearly 2 million new jobs being created over the last 12 months. Our Nation has added nearly 8 million new jobs since August of 2003. And, Madam Speaker, sometimes those numbers just kind of get lost. You say 8 million new jobs or nearly 8 million new jobs, and it is tough to know whether or not that is good or bad compared to maybe what the rest of the world is creating. What is happening in the rest of the world? Well, Madam Speaker, 7.8 million new jobs since August of 2003, that is more new jobs than all other major industrialized countries combined. That is more than all other major industrialized countries combined. That is more than England plus France plus Spain plus Italy plus Scandinavia plus Japan plus all other industrialized countries combined. That is phenomenal, Madam Speaker. It would behoove us to delve into why that has happened. Our economy has seen job gains for 44 straight months, and employment has increased in 47 States. I think I should correct myself. I think I said 49 States earlier. It is 47 States within the last year. So the lower unemployment rate that we see, 4.5 percent, among the lowest in the past 6 years. And, Madam Speaker, that rate is lower than the average for the 1960s, for the 1970s, for the 1980s, and for the 1990s. That rate is lower than the average unemployment rate during those periods of time. Economic growth, this economy that has been in transition has shown a sustainable growth path, an increasing path over a period of time. Real GDP growth is up 1.3 percent in the first quarter of this year and 2.1 percent over the last four quarters. Household spending, what are moms and dads across this Nation spending? Well, their spending is up 3.8 percent, and it remains strong and really is expected to be that kind of firm foundation upon which we continue this positive economic activity. But it will only continue, Madam Speaker, if we are responsible and set appropriate policies that will allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. By the same token, business investment continues to increase. Capital investment turned up in the first quarter. As my good friend from California mentioned just a moment ago, tax receipts were up. Tax receipts rose 11.8 percent in fiscal year 2006 on top of a 14.6 percent increase in 2005. And so far this year, we have seen growth of 11.5 percent. And that is what is confounding to our good friends on the left who don't seem to appreciate the cause and effect of allowing Americans to keep more of their money. In fact, what they say over and over is, well, the government needs more money in order to X-Y-Z. Even if you believe that all of the things that Washington does are appropriate and even if you believed that there was no waste and that there was no fraud and that there was no abuse that you could squeeze out of the system, even if you believe that, what we see happens when you decrease taxes, when you allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money, is that revenue increases. So, Madam Speaker, what we see here on this chart is a chart that demonstrates Federal revenue. That is the amount of money coming into the Federal Government in billions of dollars. And over the first part of this decade, we saw a steady decline in the amount of money coming into the Federal Government. And then once again that magic line, that magic point in time in 2003, when this Congress acted responsibly, along with this administration, and allowed Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money, what happened, Madam Speaker, is a remarkable thing, and that is a significant and huge increase in the amount of money coming into the Federal Government. It ought not have been a mystery. Many people predicted it. Many people said that is exactly what would happen, and they knew that because that is what happened throughout history. President Reagan knew it when he decreased taxes on the American people and saw increasing revenue to the Federal Government. President Kennedy knew it when he enacted appropriate decreases in taxes on the American people in the early 1960s, and what we saw as a Nation at that time was an increase in revenue to the Federal Government. So, Madam Speaker, it is important that we look at the cause and effect. What we do here makes a difference in everything. It has consequences for the American people. And so when you have positive activity in our Nation as it relates to the economy, positive job growth, positive numbers coming into the Federal Government, positive business investment, increasing homeownership, low inflation, low unemployment, it behooves us to figure out why that happened. It happened because we allowed more Americans to keep more of their hard- earned money, and we ought to continue those policies. Now, one of the great concerns that I have, Madam Speaker, is that I don't sense any amount of willingness on the part of our new majority to continue those appropriate policies. And, frankly, I don't sense a whole lot of willingness on the part of a majority of Congress on both sides of the aisle to do what needs to be done in the area of spending. As my good friend said earlier, we don't have a revenue problem here in Washington; we have a spending problem. And it is clear that that spending problem continues regardless of the party in power. So I am one of those who believes that there needs to be some restraints, some process restraints that ought to be put in place in order to decrease the level of spending appropriately and make certain that we hold people accountable and that we make certain that people are being responsible with the hard-earned money that Americans send to Washington, which is why I support a Federal Taxpayer Bill of Rights. And I have labeled this chart ``American Values and American Vision'' because, Madam Speaker, I believe that it is an American value to allow individuals to keep the benefits of their labor. I believe that the more we allow individuals to derive the benefits of their labor and their hard work and their entrepreneurship and their ingenuity that what we will do is create more Americans who will strive to do more, who will strive to create more, who will strive to risk more, who will strive to do more in order to succeed. And the more Americans that are willing to do that, I have all the faith in the world that we will continue to be a wonderful and productive and successful Nation. However, if we as a nation decide, no, we as a government know best, that we ought to tell you what to do, that we ought to tell you where to go, we ought to tell you how much you can make, that we ought to tell you when you make too much, what that does is stifle ingenuity and it stifles creativity and it stifles entrepreneurship and it says, no, we don't want you to be successful. We only want you to do this much, not more. We don't want you to truly reach your full potential. We just want you to do this much. We don't want you to dream big dreams because that wouldn't be a decision that we have made. Your dream may be at odds with some decision that Washington makes. Madam Speaker, that is not the America that I know. That is not the American value that I was taught. That is not the American vision that I have and that so many of my colleagues have. So the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that we have introduced in this Congress, Federal Taxpayer Bill of Rights, says a number of things, positively says a number of things. It says that taxpayers across this Nation have a right to a Federal Government that does not grow beyond their ability to pay for it. And what does that mean, Madam Speaker? What that means is that this bill, if enacted, would appropriately reduce the size of government or limit the size in the growth of government to an increase in the population of our Nation plus a cost- of-living adjustment so that the government could rise but no more than the increase in population and the increase in inflation. That is a restraint on the kind of spending that occurs on both sides of the aisle here in Washington. That is the kind of positive solution that I and many people support. We believe in American values and an American vision and a Taxpayer Bill of Rights that says that taxpayers have a right to receive back every dollar they entrust to the government for their retirement. The issue of entitlements, Madam Speaker, we haven't even touched on this afternoon, but it's an important issue. The issue of Social Security is one that is extremely important because it was a program that was put in place a number of decades ago, and it was put in place at a time when there were 15 or 16 workers for every retiree, a wonderful program to have in place to allow for seniors to have some nest egg or some cushion that they could rely on when they retire. It also, curiously, Madam Speaker, as you likely know, was put in place at a time when the average life expectancy in this Nation was less than when the benefits would begin. That is the kind of program that the Federal Government likes. It means that you don't necessarily get what you put into the program itself. We believe that American taxpayers have the right to receive every dollar back that they put into the Social Security program. We believe that the Social Security trust fund money ought not be spent on anything but Social Security retirement benefits. We believe that is a right that Americans have. We believe that is a responsibility that this Congress has in a positive way to say we will limit the spending of that money to what it was intended for. We believe in American values and American vision, that Federal taxpayers have a right to a balanced budget without raising taxes. There are a number of ways that you can get to balancing the budget. You can get to it by increasing taxes. You can tax businesses and you can tax people, successful people and folks all across this Nation who work for a living. You can tax them and take more of their hard-earned money and for the short term you can balance the budget. Yes, you can. But the way to responsibly balance the budget that embraces American values and that embraces American vision and that allows people to succeed and dream and work hard and have the benefits of their labor, the way to do that responsibly is not to take more of their money. The way to do that responsibly is to decrease spending, is to decrease and restrain the growth of government, and to make it so that the Federal Government does what the Federal Government ought to and ought do only. And that requires, I believe, Madam Speaker, a balanced budget amendment. As I mentioned, folks on both sides of the aisle have difficulty with spending too much of the American taxpayers' hard-earned money. We believe that a balanced budget amendment is imperative. We believe also that Federal taxpayers have a right to fundamental and fair tax reform. My good friend from Tennessee mentioned earlier that on January 1, 2011, 1/1/11, that this new majority is destined for the largest tax increase in the history of this Nation. We believe that that's wrong. We believe that the manner in which this Federal Government gains revenue stifles entrepreneurship, stifles vision, hurts dreams, harms success, says to folks who are working hard out there across this Nation, Don't do that. Don't work hard. That's not what you want to do, because if you do that, we will just take more of your money. That is not the America I dream about and I believe in. So we believe that fundamental and fair tax reform is imperative. And finally, Madam Speaker, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights says that in order to increase taxes in this body, that we must have a supermajority. We must have more than just 50 percent plus one. We must convince a supermajority, a vast number of the individuals who serve in this body from all across this Nation, that a tax increase is absolutely necessary. It is one of the provisions that we had in place for the last 12 years, from 1994 to 2006. It's one of the things that was changed on the very first day of this new Congress, that a supermajority was no longer required. It is one of the reasons, Madam Speaker, why there was no significant tax increase over the last 12 years. One of the reasons, Madam Speaker, that we've seen a significant increase in economic productivity across this Nation over the last 4 years is because of appropriate tax decreases and not allowing increases by just a slim majority. So, Madam Speaker, I am honored to come to the floor this afternoon and to share an American value, American vision that talks about positive things about our Nation and congratulates the men and women around this Nation who are working hard, who are trying to earn for their families and save for their retirement, who are trying to contribute to their own American Dream. I believe that it is an incredible honor to serve in this United States House of Representatives. I believe it is incumbent on every single Member of this House to respect and value the hard work that each and every American performs each and every single day, regardless of the job that they're doing. Every single job has merit and worth and is deserving of our respect. And one of the ways that we ought to respect it is to allow men and women across this Nation to keep more of their hard-earned money and to be responsible with the spending that we perform here at the Federal level. So I am honored to have presented that American vision and that American value to my colleagues today. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that opportunity. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental disagreement in this House of Representatives over how to protect our Nation and our approach to national security. And these differences are no more blatant than in the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill that passed this House just yesterday. While law enforcement officials were arresting six potential terrorists who planned to attack a military base in New Jersey, this Democrat majority was already working hard to strip commonsense immigration reforms from the authorization bill. Never mind that three of the would-be terrorists were in the country illegally, never mind that stronger enforcement and better resources for our Customs and Border agents could have very well kept these men from getting across the border. It is outrageous that this majority would proactively undermine an opportunity to strengthen our Nation's defenses, support our first responders, and track who is coming into our country. American common sense appears not to have extended to the majority party. There are fundamental differences in how we plan to protect America. Our enemies are watching and so are the American people.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Would this be considered the dead of night?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate him for providing leadership on this issue. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that small business is indeed important and vital, but what is before us is not H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act. What is before us is how this House will deal with that bill when it comes to the floor. What is before us is the rule that will allow or not allow open and active debate on this bill. Now, the new majority has promised us an open and fair process. They promised the American people an open and fair process. But once again, this new majority has put forward a closed and restrictive rule which will not allow an up-or-down vote on many amendments, including one that I offered that would have applied pay-as-you-go spending principles to this legislation. As my good friend from Florida mentioned, there are eight amendments that have been allowed, all of them, Mr. Speaker, with primary authors being from the majority party. Is that open? Is that fair? Last term, Speaker Pelosi said, ``Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voices silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.'' Well, I agree, Mr. Speaker. What changed? Last term, Mr. Speaker, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, ``Mr. Speaker, once again this House majority is resorting to heavy-handed tactics that are designed to do one thing only, to achieve a preordained result by shutting down a full and fair debate in this House.'' I agree, Mr. Speaker. What changed? Last term, Mr. Speaker, the current Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, said, ``If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under open rule, not just appropriations bills . . . An open process should be the norm and not the exception.'' Well, I agree, Mr. Speaker. What changed? In fact, what has changed is that less than 3 percent of the bills that have been brought to this floor under this majority under a rule have been under an open rule, less than 3 percent. What changed, Mr. Speaker? Last term, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, 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. They should be able to come and offer amendments to clean this place up.'' And I agree, Mr. Speaker. So what changed? What changed? Mr. Speaker, last term, current Democrat Caucus Chair, Mr. Emanuel said, ``Let us have and up-or-down vote. Do not be scared. Do not hide behind some little rule. Come on out here. Put it out on the table, and let us have a vote. So do not hide behind the rule. If this is what you want to do, let us have an up-or-down vote.'' I agree, Mr. Speaker. What changed? H.R. 1873, the bill today that we will talk about, seeks to increase the opportunity for small businesses to earn Federal contracts by addressing current barriers that face small businesses, and this is important. That is extremely important, but we should do so in a fiscally responsible way. My amendment would have allowed or would have applied the principles of pay-as-you-go to any new spending authorized by this legislation by requiring that any new spending have a specific offset, be paid for, common sense. It is what we all have to do at home. It is what all of our constituents have to do at home. Mr. Speaker, this majority, when it was running to take the majority last year, said, ``Our new direction is committed to pay-as-you-go budgeting, no more deficit spending. We are committed to auditing the books and subjecting every facet of Federal spending to tough budget discipline and accountability, forcing the Congress to choose a new direction and the right priorities for all Americans.'' Mr. Speaker, what happened? What happened? Last month, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was quoted and said, ``We want to get the budget deficit under control. We have said fiscal responsibility was necessary, but we are not going to be hoisted on the torrent of fiscal responsibility.'' Mr. Speaker, heaven forbid that we should be hoisted on the torrent of fiscal responsibility. Well, Mr. Speaker, rules are not rules if you only follow them when you want to, and the Democrats, the majority party, promised to use PAYGO rules for everything. Instead, they are picking and choosing when to do so. At home, we call that breaking a rule and breaking a promise. So I urge the new majority to rededicate itself to its campaign promises, its promises of pay-as-you-go spending and of an open and fair process. Fiscal responsibility and an open process should not be something that you just talk about solely before elections. We should be good stewards of the hard-earned money that Americans send to Washington in the form of their taxes all the time, not just during political campaigns. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed and restrictive rule.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I appreciate you also stating that time and time again this majority party has defeated PAYGO, an amendment that would have provided responsible fiscal spending on the part of the Federal Government, that I have offered. What it does, does it not, bring clarity to the issue----

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This new majority has once again promised us an open and fair process, but again they have failed to live up to the promises now that they're out from under the spotlight of their election year. This is extremely disappointing considering the remarkable importance of the legislation before us today, the Homeland Security Authorization Act. Among some of the provisions that were stripped out of the bill completely, a pilot program for mobile biometric identification of illegal aliens apprehended at sea, denying alien smugglers use of maritime routes and enhanced penalties for alien smuggling, and requiring immigration checks for employees at high-risk critical infrastructures. What's so scary about those being in the bill, I would ask? What idea or what one amendment was so scary that inspired this restrictive rule? I urge my colleagues not to be scared, not to hide behind this rule. Vote ``no'' on this rule so that we can have a complete and fair debate. The American people deserve no less, and they're watching.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a re-vote on the Thompson amendment.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that, under the rules of the House, rule XX, clause 2 states that the vote shall not be held open for the sole purpose of changing the outcome of the vote?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn't it true that, on the vote that was just taken, that at a point after the expiration of the time, that in fact the noes had prevailed and that individuals then changed their votes?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Final inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Is the Speaker able to inform the House as to the length of time that that vote was kept open?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. How did the Speaker call the voice vote?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, would you mind explaining exactly what that amendment pertains to and whether or not this has been discussed with our side?