Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn't it true then, Mr. Speaker, that the PAYGO rule adopted by this House was waived for the bill that we just considered, H.R. 1905?

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. So the rule of this House that relates to PAYGO was waived for H.R. 1905.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the majority leader say that if either 1905 or 1906 fails, then they shall both be tabled. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me, this House having passed H.R. 1905, how is it possible to have a bill that has already passed the House, is no longer on the floor, no longer the business of the House, tabled with subsequent action on another bill?

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me where in the House rules it provides anything that allows for the tabling of a House bill, once passed, when there has been intervening business in the meantime?

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Chair and state that the rule under which we are operating right now is in violation of House rules because there is no provision in the House rules that states that you may table a bill after it has already been dispensed with by the House.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am asking for a point of order.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that we are now operating in violation of the rules of the House because the rule that we have adopted has no rule of the House that allows for tabling of a bill once it has passed the House and intervening business has occurred.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I, too, want to add my congratulations and my commendation to the Delegate from the District of Columbia. As I mentioned early during the day, I think this has been a good debate and an interesting and a productive debate, and I commend her for the work that she has done on behalf of her constituents. I also want to state for the record once again that I strongly support the enfranchisement of the citizens of the District of Columbia. However, I believe that it ought to be done in a legal and a constitutional way. I think there is a way to do that, and we have talked about that. I do not believe that the bill that has just passed the House, 1905, in fact is a constitutional bill, and I think that that will play out over a period of time. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment about where we are right now in terms of the activity and the rules of the House of Representatives. We are further delving into Orwellian democracy. I say that because the majority party has been champions of saying one thing and then doing completely the opposite. We have been told that this would be the most open, honest and fair Congress. In fact, we weren't told it, the leadership of the other party has promised the American people that this would be the most open and honest Congress. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this has, in many ways, been the most oppressive Congress because of the majority party's actions, most oppressive Congress ever. You say, well, how can I arrive at that conclusion? Well, the way that the rules have been used and the ways that the rules have been changed draw one, I think objectively, to that conclusion because the rules that have been changed especially on this bill, on this issue, have disenfranchised completely anybody in the minority. And you say, well, how is that? Well, the rule that was adopted and the rule under which we are acting and the rule upon which I asked the Speaker multiple parliamentary inquiries states that if either H.R. 1905 or H.R. 1906 fails, then the other bill is tabled, failed based upon recommital vote. Now, what that means is this House has passed H.R. 1905. And normally what would occur is that that bill would be on its way to the Senate. But what we are doing now is waiting to see whether 1906 passes, and if it fails, then 1905 is tabled. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that it is impossible to construct a rule that passes the smell test or passes the principles of democracy in this House that allows this House to table a bill after it has already passed. It is unconscionable. Many of us have served in State legislatures. We understand the process of parliamentary procedure. We understand how minorities are able to affect policy. But when a majority wants to, by the very rule, squelch the input of the minority completely, it certainly can, based upon the ruling from the chair. But it is circular logic at best. When I asked the Speaker how on Earth could that occur, the Speaker replied, Because of the rule. When I asked, how can the rule be consistent with the rules of the House, the response from the speaker was, Because of the rule. Mr. Speaker, this is a remarkably oppressive action on the part of this majority. I urge my colleagues on the majority side to rethink the processes that they are using to make it such that the minority party in this Chamber is no longer able to affect policy, which means that 48 to 49 percent of the citizens of this Nation are no longer allowed to have Representatives that are able to affect policy because of the rules adopted by this majority party. It makes me very sad to draw that conclusion based upon the rule that this House has adopted today. I urge my colleagues to reconsider.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn't it true that the rule which we are adopting is unprecedented and has never been adopted in this House?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my good friend for yielding. I don't want to belabor this, but I think it is important for the American people to understand and appreciate, and I think it is important for my good friend from Georgia to appreciate, that this rule that has been adopted is unprecedented. There has never in the history of the House of Representatives been a rule that has allowed for the tabling of a bill after it has passed the House. Ever, ever. I urge my colleagues to look at the rules that they are adopting in order to squelch minority input.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Orwellian democracy is alive and well here in Washington. Our friends on the other side seem to think that if they just say something, it is true. Talk about the budget. We have heard this morning that they are going to balance the budget without raising taxes. Funny thing is, the budget that they passed will do this: Between 2010 and 2011 their budget will raise taxes on ordinary income from 35 to 39.6, capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent, dividends from 15 percent to 39.6 percent, estate tax, 0 percent to 55 percent. Child tax credit goes from $1,000 to $500, and the lowest tax bracket goes from 10 percent to 15 percent. $400 billion in new taxes. Mr. Speaker, they may be saying one thing, but they are doing completely the opposite. They may be able to fool themselves, but they won't fool the American people.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. I would like to just comment about both the rule and the bill; and, Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to just tell you that Orwellian democracy continues to be alive and well here in the House Chamber. Our good friends on the other side of the aisle seem to think that, if they just say something, that it is, that their action does not make any difference. This is the open rule that is not. That is what this is. Because what we have, as my good friend from California described, is in fact a modified open rule. What has occurred with this rule is that there is a requirement for pre-filing amendments to this bill, and in fact, the pre-filing had to occur about 72 hours before the final portion of the bill will be voted upon. That is not an open rule, Mr. Speaker. An open rule is when the bill comes to the floor and anybody who has an idea and wants to offer an amendment is allowed to offer an amendment. Why is that important? Well, that is important because each of us represents a certain number of constituents around this Nation, and at some point, each of us may have a better idea about how the bill ought to progress through the process. But right now, what has happened is, unless we had that idea 2 days ago, yesterday, then it is not able to be entertained. So this is not an open rule. I would ask my friends in the majority party: What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What amendment is it that you are afraid of that might be brought to the floor that is so dangerous to the American people that you do not want to even talk about it? That is what I would ask. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Massachusetts says that he thinks it is important for people to be able to read amendments and read bills. Well, we do, too, but that is provided for in the rules. That is provided for in the rules. This rule does not address that. The fact that somebody might bring an amendment to the floor under a truly open rule would not affect that at all. So he also asked whether he should apologize to the gentleman from California for having what he described as on open rule. No, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that he apologize to the American people for not carrying out the responsibility of democracy in this Chamber. So this is not an open rule. This is the open rule that was not, and it is important for the American people to appreciate that. I do want to mention a couple of items about the merits of the bill itself. We all had an opportunity to be home for the past 2 weeks. This was one issue that constituents in my district wanted to talk about. They wanted to talk about whether or not it was appropriate for Washington to insert itself into the compensation for CEOs in this Nation. Many people, I being one of them, are confused and concerned about some of the compensation that major CEOs are getting in this Nation, but everybody in my district appreciates and understands that the place to solve that problem is not Washington, DC. In fact, that is the last place that you want this problem to be solved because Washington, DC, cannot respond in a nimble enough fashion to be able to do so. In fact, there will be significant, unintended consequences, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the challenges that all businesses have across this Nation are encumbered by the taxation that they are required to pay by the exposure to litigation and, yes, Mr. Speaker, by the regulations that come down from on high, and this will be another regulation. So what the majority party is doing is saying to our businesses across this Nation, our public companies across this Nation is, you have got another reason to go offshore; you have got another reason to take American jobs and remove them because we are going to make it too difficult for you to engage in your business here in America. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what they are going to do is to make it so difficult for many businesses with their onerous regulations that not only will individuals take their businesses offshore, many of them will say it is just too much of a challenge to comply with all of your ridiculous regulations, so we will go private so that Americans all across this Nation will be precluded from participating in a greater way in the American Dream. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a bad idea. The bill is a bad idea. Washington cannot solve this problem. You know that, and I urge my colleagues to oppose both.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today, Americans will reach deep into their pockets and pay Uncle Sam. Today, they will finish slogging through the maze of Tax Code jargon, crunching numbers and filling out forms. Today, they will once again trust Washington with their money, because today, Mr. Speaker, is just like every other tax day before it. Mr. Speaker, Americans are fed up with the status quo of today, and they deserve a different tomorrow. They deserve a tomorrow where they won't be taxed from the day they are born until the day they die and at every single point in between. Americans deserve a tomorrow where saving and investing are virtues, not vices. Americans deserve a tomorrow where taxation brings efficient and responsible government. Americans deserve a tomorrow where doing their part and paying their fair share is enough. And they deserve a tomorrow where government respects their hard work and appreciates their sacrifice. Only then will tomorrow be any different from today. May we all work positively for that new day.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the leadership on both sides of the aisle for this issue. I am heartened by the stated enthusiasm of the members of the majority party for the Taxpayer Protection Act. I am remarkably encouraged. Today being tax day, it is appropriate that we speak about this issue, and it is mostly good work. I would commend the individuals who worked on this. It is mostly good work, but I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that real protection requires real reform, and the real solution to the challenges that we face as Americans, all of us in our tax system, is that we need fundamental reform. This is an appropriate bill and kind of tinkers with the margins of our tax system, and I think those modifications are, as I mentioned, appropriate and a step in the right direction; but our current system is extremely regressive and extremely unfair. So, to talk about the earned income tax credit, it's an appropriate thing to notify people who don't know that they are eligible for that. However, there are embedded taxes in everything that we purchase that make our system right now much more regressive than it ought be. There is legislation available that would, in fact, promote fundamental reform. It would capture all of the underground economy that is fully a third of our current economy, nearly $1 trillion. It would reward those kinds of things that we say that we want, like hard work and success and entrepreneurship and vision and all those wonderful American ideals. That bill is H.R. 25. It is the fair tax, the national retail sales tax. It would bring about true fundamental reform and would bring about true protection for the American taxpayer. So I commend the individuals who brought forward H.R. 1677, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a small step in the right direction. However, real reform requires real change. Fundamental reform to our tax system is what is needed, and I am hopeful that in relatively short order we will be able to embrace each other with real fundamental reform to our entire tax system on the floor of this House.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, thank you so very much. Before I begin, I do want to just say that our hearts, our thoughts, and our prayers are with all at Virginia Tech and in Blacksburg, Virginia, today. As you know, Madam Speaker, an unspeakable horror visited their campus, and it is absolutely impossible for any of us to know what those who were directly connected to it are going through. We were so incredibly heartened by their convocation today as we watched it, and we noted that Hokie spirit is effervescent and incredibly supportive. We are all with the Hokie Nation today. We wish them the best and know that they are comforted by each other and by God's amazing grace. Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to come to the floor again this evening. I want to thank the leadership for the opportunity to share some comments and to discuss an issue that our friends just finished talking about a little bit. This is a remarkable day every year. Madam Speaker, as you know, today is once again the day when Americans reach deep into their pockets and they pay Uncle Sam. Many Americans may be filling out their tax forms right now, or they have just finished slogging through the maze of the Tax Code jargon and crunching numbers and filling out form after form after form. And today, Americans all across this Nation will once again trust Washington with their money, because today is tax day. It is usually April 15; by a couple different factors it became April 17 this year. But nonetheless, Madam Speaker, it is tax day. And I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that Americans are fed up with the status quo of today, and I and many of my colleagues believe that Americans deserve a different tomorrow. They deserve a tomorrow where they won't be taxed from the day they are born until the day that they die and at every single point in between. Americans deserve a tomorrow where saving and investing are virtues, not vices. Americans deserve a tomorrow where taxation brings efficient and responsible representation, and they deserve a tomorrow where, when the American people do their part, they understand that paying their fair share is enough. And they deserve a tomorrow where the government respects their hard work and appreciates their sacrifice. Only then, Madam Speaker, will tomorrow be any different than today. We are going to talk and discuss this evening the issue of taxes, the tax structure that we have in our Nation that supports so many, many things. We are going to talk about its fairness or lack of fairness. We are going to talk about the amount of money that is received and whether or not there are any options. We are going to talk about positive solutions. And as we do so, we like, when we come to the floor, to talk about facts. I want to talk about facts. And I will remind my colleagues of one of our favorite quotes. One of my favorite quotes comes from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said that ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.'' And so it is, Madam Speaker, that as we come and talk about facts as they relate to taxes, it is important that we use correct figures, that we use accurate figures. One of the figures that I ran across when looking at the tax issue and realizing how large our government has grown and how many taxes the Washington government takes, in 2005 the Federal Government took in about $2.4 trillion. That is an awful lot of money, Madam Speaker, and it is sometimes hard to kind of get your arms around what that actually means. Well, in a relatively short period of time, less than 50 years, what that means, based upon accounting for inflation and accounting for growth, is that that amount of money is larger than the entire U.S. economy was in 1959. So in less than one person's lifetime we have grown the amount of tax revenue, and this is in constant dollars, real dollars, we have grown the amount of tax revenue larger than our entire government was and the economy was in 1959. So it is truly remarkable. And what that brings about, Madam Speaker, is that we ought to be, as representatives of the people, asking questions. Is that appropriate? Is that an appropriate policy for our Nation? Should we be modifying things? Should we be changing things? Should we be potentially more fair to the American people? What should we be doing? And so we will be joined tonight by a number of colleagues. One of my good friends and fellow colleagues from Georgia is Congressman Phil Gingrey. Congressman Gingrey is a fellow physician, represents a district right outside of the city of Atlanta. I served with him in the State senate, and it is a privilege to serve with him here in the United States Congress. He is one of the true fiscal conservatives, an individual who understands and appreciates the importance of tax revenue, yes, but also the importance of fairness on the part of our Federal Government. So I am pleased to welcome my good friend from Georgia, Congressman Gingrey.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my good friend and colleague from Georgia for your comments, for your perspective, and for the truth and the facts that you bring to the table, and you mentioned a number of them. I would just like to highlight two of them because they are incredibly important, Madam Speaker, for the American people to appreciate. The first is that Tax Freedom Day. We talk about tax day, but Tax Freedom Day has yet to arrive. Depending on what State you are in, I think the earliest State, Tax Freedom Day is April 22, which is next week. But what that means, Madam Speaker, is that every single American who has been working since the first of the year, on average, every single one, is continuing to work from January 1 until now, through at least April 22 to pay the taxes that they owe. They haven't even started to work for themselves or their family. Madam Speaker, that is a tax system that is broken and flawed. The other fact that you brought out, my good friend from Georgia, Congressman Gingrey brought out, was that the proposal that was passed on this floor just a little over two weeks ago by our friends on the other side of the aisle, many of whom call themselves Blue Dogs. We are checking to make certain, Madam Speaker. We think they are probably lap dogs because of the bills that they have been supporting. And one of them was this budget that was passed that will result in a $400 billion tax increase for the American people, the largest tax increase in the history of the Nation. That is a fact. I want to mention a couple of other facts and then call on a couple of other good friends who have joined me this evening. Oftentimes, Madam Speaker, you hear people say, well, the wealthy in this Nation don't pay any taxes, or they get a remarkable tax benefit, that they are given favored treatment. You hear that oftentimes by our friends on the other side. This chart, Madam Speaker, really points out the truth. These are actual numbers and actual facts. And that is that the top 1 percent of wage earners in this Nation, the top 1 percent, pay 36.9 percent of the taxes. That is, the top 1 percent pay 36.9 percent of the taxes. If you take the top 10 percent of wage earners in this Nation, the taxes that they pay, the total revenue that they pay in terms of taxes for this Nation, 68.2 percent. And the top half, the top 50 percent pay 96.7 percent of the tax revenue that comes into this Nation. Madam Speaker, that is a fact. It is important to appreciate that because our good friends on the other side of the aisle so often want to play class warfare. They want to pit one side against the other. And what this shows very, very clearly is that individuals all across this Nation are paying their fair share and then some. I have been joined by many good friends who will comment about various aspects of our tax system and tax policy, as well as the budget that has been proposed. And right now I would like to ask a good friend from Texas to join me, and look forward to his comments, Congressman Kevin Brady from Texas, who has a wonderful business background and appreciates the importance of appropriate government policy and making certain that we allow all Americans, all Americans, the greatest opportunity in this wonderful Nation. Congressman Brady, thanks so much for joining us.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his wonderful summary of the remarkable taxes that each and every one of us are exposed to on a daily basis, everything we do. And that is why I say that the American people deserve more than that. They deserve a government that is more fair than that, especially in the area of taxation. The $2,700 for each individual in Texas is about what they would pay, if the policies of the other side go through, about what they would pay in the State of Georgia as well. And the folks have a lot of ability to figure out what they ought to do with that money and a greater priority that they ought to do with that money, as opposed to what the government ought to do with that money. So as most people understand and appreciate, they know how to spend their money better than the Federal Government. And somebody mentioned earlier today that the Federal Government, whenever they do anything on behalf of the American people, it costs three times as much as it would in the private sector. So that even gets to the point more about what the facts of the situation are and why they belie what we are doing, why they would draw anyone to the appropriate conclusion that we are taxed too much as a Nation. I have got a few other folks who have joined me, and I appreciate it so much. And I am joined by my good friend from North Carolina, Congressman McHenry, who also is an individual who has served in the State legislature and knows well the importance of fiscal responsibility and the importance of making certain that we don't overtax our Americans all across this Nation. I welcome you. I look forward to your comments.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from North Carolina and I appreciate his perspective. And I think he said a couple of important things. One was that he pointed out that the average American spends almost 40 hours preparing his or her taxes. That is one whole week's worth of work. That is 2 percent of the productive time of each and every American spent just on the unproductive activity of preparing their tax returns. If that doesn't scream for reform, Madam Speaker, I am not sure what does. I am pleased to be joined by another good friend, a new Member of Congress, a freshman Member from Tennessee, Congressman David Davis, who I know has run a business and understands the importance of the economy's being vibrant, of the appropriate level of taxes not just for businesses but for individuals. And I appreciate your joining us tonight and look forward to your comments.