Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. I am struck by the general sense by the majority party, or seeming sense by the majority party, that their actions don't really make any difference to date. In fact, the delay we have already had, I have heard from some folks in the military that they are not able to keep up some of the repair of some of the equipment in other areas, not in the field of war right now, but in other areas, which makes us less safe as a nation. I was wondering if you had anybody you talked with who was giving a similar story?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate those comments, because it is an incredible privilege and honor to represent a nation where we have men and women who are willing to stand up and serve, to volunteer to stand up and serve to protect the freedoms that you describe, which is why in my district people are so confounded by the kind of policy that is being pushed by the majority party at this point. Because what they see is a majority party now that is saying to our troops, we don't believe in you, we don't believe you can accomplish your mission. It is saying to our allies that you can't believe in the commitment of the United States. And it says to our enemies that all you have to do is wait. It is very strange policy. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate you bringing up the extra $20-plus billion in the bill. And I am not often struck by the candor of some of our friends in the Democratic Party, but I was moved and struck by the candor of the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, who was on one of the Sunday shows. I think it was ``Meet the Press'' with Mr. Russert. And Mr. Russert said: Why did you put all of that money in the bill? And Chairman Rangel, to his remarkable credit of candor said ``because we needed the votes.'' So it is clear that the reason that the extra $20-plus billion of pork spending is in that bill is because, exactly as you said, they believe that people won't be able to vote against the bill if that kind of pork spending is in it.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you once again for pointing out this incredibly prescient and clear perspective on this issue, if people in the majority party would just step back and take a look. And that is why it is important that you pointed out that the bill number is H.R. 1591 and how to find it online at www.thomas.loc.gov, and I urge people to look at the area in the bill that has the artificial time lines and benchmarks. What we oftentimes hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle is there is no specific time line; but the bill is very specific. It says by October 1, we will begin to bring the troops home. So it is clear that their mission is politics. The majority party's mission is politics. There can be no other reason for the remarkably foolish, if you want to support the United States, the remarkably foolish policy that they put on the table. The only reason can be politics, and short-term politics at that.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Absolutely.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Exactly.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady because it is the question that needs to be asked, and it is a question that our friends on the other side of the aisle asked all the time about what the President asked once Saddam fell, what next? What we ask them now, given our current situation: Where is your strategy? If you succeed with your policy of ending the funding for the troops and ending our involvement in Iraq, what next? What happens then? There are some very good scholarly individuals who have looked at this, and they have said what they believe will happen next. In fact, the chart that I have here shows what the National Intelligence Estimate, the NIE, says will happen if we fail in Iraq. That is important because that group, the National Intelligence Estimate, is the group that our good friends cite all of the time, incorrectly, I might add oftentimes, but they cite them as the source for information about what ought to be done in Iraq. But what the National Intelligence Estimate has said that the consequences of failure in Iraq would be: ``Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations remain an essential, stabilizing element in Iraq.'' Essential stabilizing element in Iraq. Last week when General Petraeus was here and what he said, and it was so distorted by our friends on the other side of the aisle, but what he said on April 26 was: ``As I noted during my confirmation hearing, military action is necessary but not sufficient. We can provide the Iraqis an opportunity, but they will have to exploit it.'' He also said: ``And again I note that we are just really getting started with the new effort.'' He went on to say: ``Success will take continued commitment, perseverance and sacrifice, all to make possible an opportunity for the all-important Iraqi political actions that are the key to long-term solutions to Iraqi's many problems. And because we are operating in new areas and challenging elements in those areas, this effort may get harder before it gets easier.'' Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of information that is imperative for this Congress to appreciate and recognize and utilize in its formula for where we go from here. If we ignore that kind of information from our general that was unanimously approved by our Senate, if we ignore that kind of information, we do so at our peril. So what happens if we have failure in Iraq, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, well, one, Iraqi security forces would be subject to sectarian control. What does that mean? That means in essence the nation breaks into three warring factions, three warring factions, and some would say that is what is happening right now. The difference is there would be no stabilizing influence whatsoever, and the estimates are that ten of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would be slaughtered. Mr. Speaker, that is a sobering assessment. That is a sobering assessment. Secondly, interference by neighboring countries in an open conflict is what the National Intelligence Estimate says is likely with failure in Iraq. What does that mean. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, what that means is that the conflagration, the battles, the war in Iraq becomes a war in the larger Middle East in a way that can only be described as a nightmare not just for the Middle East but for peace in the world, for peace in the world. The National Intelligence Estimate went on to say there would be massive civilian casualties and population displacement, as I mentioned before. The estimates range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of individuals slaughtered, killed, murdered, in sectarian violence that would put the kind of violence that we are seeing right now, which is horrendous, but it would make it seem like just a prelude, just a prelude. Fourth, the al Qaeda in Iraq would plan increased attacks inside and outside Iraq. This is important because if al Qaeda, if in the larger war on terror which we sometimes or oftentimes in this Chamber seem to lose sight of, but if in the larger war on terror the terrorists, the Islamic terrorists whose stated desire is to wipe Israel off the map and to end our way of life, that is their stated desire, not my opinion, that is their stated desire. If we fail in Iraq, what results is a haven of significant size and significant ability to attract terrorists in a way and to allow them the opportunity to plot for significant violence and attacks both inside and outside Iraq. Mr. Speaker, as we saw outside Iraq doesn't just mean next door. It means around the world. As we saw on September 11, around the world can mean violence and horrendous activities visiting our shores when we least expect it. Finally, the National Intelligence Estimate says there will be spiraling violence and political disarray, including Kurdish attempts at autonomy in Kirkuk. What that means is the nation breaks apart. And if Iraq breaks apart in the way that the National Intelligence Estimate has stated would be the likely outcome of failure in Iraq, if that nation breaks apart, what happens is it becomes a magnet for terrorism and a terrorist haven in the Middle East, a less stable Middle East, a more endangered Middle East, an emboldened enemy, a likely scenario that would bring about significant violence upon our shores once again. So, Mr. Speaker, the consequence of the actions that have been adopted by this majority party, by this bill that the President has vetoed this evening, the consequences of moving forward with that same kind of legislation, which the majority party has threatened to do, and ``threatened'' is the right term because it threatens to place, Mr. Speaker, at greatest risk and in greater harm's way, if we continue along that path, what we do is bring about a less stable Middle East, certainly a less stable Iraq, a greater threat to Israel and other Nations in the Middle East and certainly a greater threat to the United States. I was quoting earlier, Mr. Speaker, from some news reports and newspapers from around the Nation on what they believed was the essence of this bill that the President has appropriately vetoed this evening. The Washington Times said that, ``The Democrats' lack of interest in the real-world impact of their legislation is reflected in their shabby treatment of the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lieutenant General David Petraeus. Last week, House Democratic leaders initially declined General Petraeus' invitation to brief Members, reversing themselves only after coming under fire from Republicans. And by tying funding for the war to a surrender bill that the President will veto, the Democrats are showing studied contempt for our troops in the field.'' Studied contempt, Mr. Speaker, which brings me back to the original letter that I read from Lieutenant Jason Nichols, who clearly appreciates this studied contempt, but also takes it to the next step and describes what that studied contempt does. I quote Lieutenant Nichols once again, ``To be brief, your words are killing us.'' A powerful statement, Mr. Speaker, and we ought to be listening. We ought to be listening to the brave men and women who stand up to defend our liberty. The Washington Times went on to say on April 26, ``When it came to the 150,000 U.S. troops now fighting in Iraq, lawmakers included enough poison-pill language to ensure a presidential veto which will in turn delay much-needed support for military operations in Iraq.'' In another paragraph in that same article on April 26, ``To satisfy the MoveOn.org types, particularly in the House, the bill stars the pullout as early as nine and a half weeks from now. In an effort to provide political cover for House `Blue Dogs' from more conservative districts who want to vote with Mrs. Pelosi, it contains troop- withdrawal language that sets a `goal' for pulling out rather than a deadline.'' However, Mr. Speaker, if you read the bill H.R. 1591, what it states, indeed, is a hard and fast deadline. I want to quote one more individual who has stood tall and taken a lot of heat for it, and this is Senator Joseph Lieberman who last week wrote in the Washington Post that the Democrat surrender bill is ``dangerously wrong.'' He went on to say, ``And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq. This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there. What is needed in Iraq policy is not overheated rhetoric but a sober assessment of the progress we have made and the challenges we still face.'' He went on to say on April 25 of this year, ``Indeed, to the extent that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al Qaeda. Whether we like it or not, al Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.'' Finally in that article, Mr. Speaker, Senator Lieberman said, ``In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis, particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.'' So, Mr. Speaker, where do we go from here? Well, I think that it is time for the majority party to regroup, to reassess, to appreciate that what they have done is spent four months on a policy that is candidly shameful; that brings about a discredit and a disservice to our troops; that sends the wrong message to our allies saying that you cannot trust the United States of America; and certainly sends the wrong message to our enemies saying that if you oppose the United States and you are in a conflict, all you have got to do is wait because the United States will not live up to its commitment. So, Mr. Speaker, what we need to do from here, the President has vetoed this bill this evening. I would challenge the leadership in the majority party to bring the House together. I would challenge the Senate to work together in a bipartisan way and come up with a bill that the President can sign and to do so in very rapid fashion. Every day that we delay makes it more harmful for our troops, makes it so they know not whether or not they will get the resources that they need to carry on their mission, makes it less predictable, continues to erode their morale because of the comments like the ones by the Senate majority leader last week. So we must in short order come together and pass a bill that the President can sign. Mr. Speaker, regardless of what you believe, what one believes about the nature of this battle and whether or not it is indeed the central front of the war on terror, it is incumbent that we live up to our responsibilities, to our oath as Members of the United States House of Representatives, that we live up to the responsibility and the duty that we have. That primary responsibility is to preserve and to protect and to defend the United States. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the issues about preserving and protecting and defending the United States is making certain that the men and women who stand up and volunteer to protect our liberty and our freedom deserve all of our support and the resources that they require to protect themselves and to carry out their missions. So, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the leadership of the House and the Senate to make certain that this week we act to bring forth a bill that will pass both chambers of this Congress, and that the President can sign, that does a credit and honors our troops; that sends the correct message to our allies, and that is, that you can count on the word of the United States of America; and sends the correct message to our enemies, and that is, that if you engage the United States in military battle, that you have met an enemy that you cannot defeat.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 249, the bill that we are discussing here, prohibits the commercial sale of wild horses and burros by the Bureau of Land Management. As part of the Bureau of Land Management's program to protect and manage and control wild, free-roaming horses and burros, they are permitted to sell wild horses and burros that are over 10 years of age for commercial purposes for approximately $10 per animal, if the animals have not been successfully adopted in three auctions. If the animals are not adopted and BLM cannot sell the animals, then it will have to provide long-term care for them. Implementing this bill, H.R. 249, will cause the Bureau of Land Management to lose the minimal revenue it is currently able to generate from the sale of the animals and incur additional costs by requiring it to provide long-term care for the animals that they otherwise wouldn't have to, essentially, by mandating a new responsibility. Now, according to the CBO report accompanying this bill, it says, ``Based on information from Bureau of Land Management about the number of animals sold and the cost to care for them, CBO estimates that the resulting net changes in discretionary spending under H.R. 249 would not exceed $500,000 annually, assuming the availability of appropriated funds.'' However, it costs BLM roughly $25 million a year to feed and shelter roughly 30,000 wild horses in its management program. In 2006, 100,000 horses were slaughtered for consumption, which raises concerns that the cost of this legislation could turn out to be much more significant than CBO and the bill's proponents predict. My amendment is very simple. It will apply the principle of pay-as- you-go to any new spending authorized by this legislation. It would require that any new spending as a result of this legislation must have a specific offset before this legislation can take effect. Now, Mr. Chairman, as you know, an excerpt of the New Direction For America, which was proposed by the new majority, the House Democrats, in the 109th Congress as their plan once they were to take the majority, reads, ``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.'' And I agree, Mr. Chairman. On April 18, the majority leader was quoted as saying, ``We want to get the budget deficit under control. We've said that fiscal responsibility was necessary, but we are not going to be hoisted on the torrent of fiscal responsibility.'' That was just prior to the new majority ignoring their own PAYGO rules in order to pass a bill. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that rules aren't rules if you only follow them when you want to. Democrats promised to use PAYGO rules for everything, and 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 the principle of pay-as-you-go spending. Fiscal responsibility shouldn't be something that is talked about only on the campaign trail. This might not seem like a lot of money to my friends on the other side of the aisle, but Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve for us to be good stewards of their hard-earned money all the time, not just when it's politically convenient. I urge adoption of this quality, commonsense, simple PAYGO amendment.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am, in its current form.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit offers an effective date for fiscal responsibility. H.R. 249 prohibits the commercial sale of wild horses and burros by the Bureau of Land Management. Implementing this bill will cause the BLM to lose the ability to sell these animals and incur additional costs by requiring it to provide long-term care for the animals that they otherwise would not be required to, thus mandating a new responsibility. Mr. Speaker, according to the CBO report accompanying this bill, it said, based on the information from BLM about the number of animals sold and the cost to care for them, CBO estimates that the resulting net changes in discretionary spending under H.R. 249 would not exceed $500,000 annually, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. However, the Bureau of Land Management spends roughly $25 million a year to feed and shelter 30,000 wild horses in its management program. This motion to recommit will establish an effective date for the legislation, requiring the Secretary to certify to Congress that the long-term care of animals spared by this act will not exceed the cost of $500,000, which is noted in the bill and is the CBO estimate. We all know that the CBO is noted for outrageously poor estimates. The capital gains tax reductions from 2003 to 2006, from 20 to 15 percent, that were enacted, CBO estimated revenue at $197 billion. In fact, Mr. Speaker, $330 billion were gained, an error of 68 percent. This is after the CBO underestimated capital gains revenue following the 1997 decrease by $217 billion. Further, CBO underestimated Federal tax revenue due to the responsible tax decreases that were enacted earlier this decade by $255 billion. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we all know that CBO estimated the Medicare part D premium would cost $38 a month, and in fact, it costs $22 per month, an error of 72 percent. Mr. Speaker, this week in The Hill newspaper, former Congressman Charlie Stenholm appealed to Congress not to pass this legislation for budgetary reasons. Under the new PAYGO regime, Congress should not be perpetuating long-term options when another, less costly, option is available. As of December 2004, 8,400 wild horses and burros became eligible for sale, and as of April 2007, the Bureau of Land Management has sold more than 2,300 horses. If the remaining horses which are available for sale are safe for long-term care, then the Secretary should be required to clarify that the care will not create an undue financial burden on the American people. If the Secretary can certify that this legislation will not exceed $500,000 annually, then this proposal goes forward. If the Secretary cannot certify this requirement, then the legislation should be stopped, and the onus is on Congress to revisit the proposal and find new money. I urge the new majority to rededicate themselves to the principle of fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility should not be something that is just talked about on the campaign trail. This may not seem like a lot of money to my friends on the other side of the aisle, but the American people deserve for us to be good stewards of their hard-earned money all the time, not just when it is politically convenient. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the Iraq supplemental bill being brought to the floor today is a bad idea wrapped in the wrong intentions. This is a time when Congress ought to be working together to provide our troops with the tools and the resources necessary to do their job. Instead, the Democrat leadership is committed to a strategy that spells nothing but failure in Iraq. They are telling the commanders in the field that 535 politicians know better how to do their job. It is irresponsible for Members of Congress to play Commander in Chief. There is too much at stake in Iraq for political grandstanding. This bill sends the wrong message to our soldiers, our allies and our enemies. It tells our troops that we have got no faith in them. It tells our allies that we lack the resolve of our stated commitment, and it tells our enemies all they have to do is wait. This is shameful partisan politics that puts our troops at greater risk. It is wrong, and the American people are watching.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, this is a sobering and sad day for America and for the House of Representatives. The Iraq supplemental war bill came to the floor this evening. It is a bill where the President had requested the resources of the American people to support American men and women in harm's way nearly 11 weeks ago. The bill that came to the floor tonight had that amount of resources, and then some. It had over $20 billion in extra money, Madam Speaker, money that nobody could honestly say with a straight face was appropriate in an emergency supplemental bill. In addition to that, it also had all sorts of timelines and arbitrary benchmarks that make it so that the Speaker of the House and every single Member of this House is in fact a commander-in-chief. There was celebration on the other side of the aisle when this bill passed, muted. I would suggest, Madam Speaker, it was a little embarrassed, because they understand in their heart what they have done. What they have done is a shameful action, Madam Speaker. General Petraeus came to visit the Congress today. General Petraeus is the Commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq. General Petraeus and his men and women are putting their lives on the line, day in and day out. He came to the House today. He came to Congress today to ask for clarification of what Congress had intended. He asked for the opportunity to inform the House of Representatives, the Members of the House. And from what I heard this evening, Madam Speaker, the majority party didn't listen and they didn't learn. All they have done, apparently, is to work on legislation that will ensure defeat. Madam Speaker, this majority party is vested in failure. Vested in failure. Their actions do a disservice to our troops. They say to our troops, we have got no faith in you. We don't believe in your mission. We don't believe in you. That is what this majority party says. They send the wrong message to our allies. What they say to our allies is that you can't trust America. America's word is not good, given this majority party. And they send the wrong message to our enemies. What they say to our enemies is, all you have to do is wait. Madam Speaker, this is a sad and a shameful day. The majority leader in the United States Senate has said that this war is lost. ``This war is lost.'' I stood with parents of a constituent of mine this weekend, Madam Speaker, this past weekend, who was on his way to Iraq that very day. They asked me, what am I supposed to say to my son? It is a heart- wrenching question, Madam Speaker, when you have the majority leader in the United States Senate saying that the war is lost. It is in headlines across this Nation that the majority leader says this war is lost. Madam Speaker, I think it is incumbent, given that kind of statement by the majority leader in the United States Senate, for the House Democrat leaders to come down to this floor and say what they believe. Do they believe the war is lost? Do they agree with Senator Reid? Madam Speaker, their silence is deafening. Do you hear them? What do they say? Are they here tonight? Are they here to say what they believe about our troops? Are they here to say that they believe in the men and women who are protecting our freedom and working as hard as they can to protect themselves? Madam Speaker, this Democrat silence is deafening. What a shame. What a terrible shame. Madam Speaker, it pains me and it saddens me to say what appears to be leading these new Democrats is the same as the old, and that that it is all politics all the time. What a shame.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, this week is ``Cover the Uninsured Week,'' highlighting the fact that the health and well-being of our Nation's future is at stake. Over 45 million Americans will be without health insurance at some point during this year. It's past time that Washington helps find real solutions to this very real problem. With colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and in the House and Senate, we have introduced legislation that will begin to take a meaningful approach to bringing down the cost of health care and help cover all Americans. The Health Partnership through Creative Federalism Act, H.R. 506, empowers individual States and regions to develop unique solutions to fit the needs of their citizens. We are fighting to put the needs of patients first. Unlike many other proposals, our reform rejects a one-size-fits-all model. The inflexibility of such an antiquated approach has continually proven ineffective in addressing individual health care needs. Working together, we can find a way to provide health care coverage for all Americans, so that American families will have a brighter and healthier future.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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 adopted in this 110th Congress, the five Delegate Members are allowed to vote in the Committee of the Whole, but not in the whole House?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Isn't it true that the number of eligible Members to vote in the whole House is 435 when all seats are filled?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn't it further true, Mr. Speaker, that the number of eligible votes in the Committee of the Whole is 440?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Four hundred forty if all seats were filled.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn't it further true, Mr. Speaker, that the vote in the Committee of the Whole on the Gillibrand amendment was adopted by a vote of 254-165?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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