Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand that his words be taken down.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the ranking member and appreciate his indulgence. I strongly oppose the underlying bill, as I believe it to be unconstitutional. The House of Representatives stands on the verge of voting on a flatly unconstitutional, historically egregious bill, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. This bill would grant the District of Columbia a full voting seat in the House of Representatives by circumventing the Constitution. While I agree that it is an injustice that any United States citizens not have voting representation in Congress, the contorted logic some have used to justify this bill is quite troubling. In supporting this proposal, Kenneth Starr wrote, ``There is nothing in our Constitution's history or its fundamental principles suggesting that the Framers intended to deny the precious right to vote to those who live in the capital of the great democracy they founded.'' While this may be true, the fact remains that the Constitution exclusively affords House representation to the states. Just because the District of Columbia was denied a seat in the People's House does not mean that Congress can ignore the Constitution. Advocates of the DC Voting bill are discounting as unpersuasive the ``plain language'' of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several states.'' As if that weren't enough, the next sentence declares, ``No Person shall be a Representative who shall not . . . when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.'' It is indisputable that House representation is constitutionally limited to the states. In fact, the Bush administration recently declared the bill unconstitutional, citing 12 provisions in the Constitution that expressly link congressional representation to statehood. Certainly, no one is claiming that the District of Columbia is one of the 50 states. Sadly, constitutionality is not a concern of proponents of this legislation. The central argument from supporters of this bill is fairness. They argue that Members of Congress have a moral responsibility to right this wrong by any means. The Founding Fathers would be aghast at this brazen disregard for the Constitution in pursuit of a quick fix. Supporters of this feel-good legislation frequently cite the ``District Clause'' of the Constitution as justification, which reads, ``Congress shall have power . . . to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District.'' It is correct that Congress has the power to govern the District of Columbia, but this does not mean that the residents of the District of Columbia have the right to a seat in Congress, giving them the power to legislate over the 50 states. The District Clause is found in section 8 of article I, the same section that gives Congress the power to ``establish Post Offices'' and to ``make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.'' Surely no one would propose granting Fort Gordon a seat in the House, but the promotion of this would follow the same logic. To be clear: I support representation for the residents of the District of Columbia but not under this bill's approach. It is truly unjust that these tax-paying citizens are denied the right to have their voice heard in the people's House. But Congress cannot create voting rights for D.C. residents by simply ignoring or contorting the Constitution because it is our will. There are two proper, constitutionally just courses of action to remedy this unfairness. First, the Founders gave Congress and the people the authority to amend the Constitution. This course would provide for a 51st state of the District of Columbia. But as the constitutional amendment process can be protracted and complicated, I support the second course-- retroceding the non-federal portion of Washington, D.C., to the State of Maryland. Following this plan, most of the residents would have full representation in the House and Senate, as residents of Maryland. This is a commonsense proposal with historic precedent. In 1846, the land west of the Potomac was ceded back to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and these people now enjoy full congressional representation. There is a great responsibility in supporting the republican form of government that our Founders created. And where injustices lie in the Constitution, Congress is right to try to correct them. But the greatest respect is owed to our Founders and our Nation as the longest surviving democracy in history. There is a reason for that and it has much to do with respecting the genius of our founding document. We must not ignore the principles of the constitutional republic our Founders laid out. It is fundamentally antithetical to pursue representative fairness while disregarding the Constitution. I am hopeful that supporters of this bill will see the great fault in their logic, and resolve the injustice of the residents of the District of Columbia not having a voting representative in Congress properly within the bounds of the Constitution.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Section 2 of the rule states that the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker. What time would that be?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Can the Chair enlighten the Members of the House as to when the Chair might rule as to what time we would be voting on this?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The gentleman from California mentioned that this was no different than any other rule. Isn't it true that this section 2, under the rule, is a new and unique section that has been added to this rule?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to whether or not those words are eligible to be taken down.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand that his words be taken down.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, many of us in this Chamber find it absolutely incomprehensible that there are those who believe that the best course of action in the face of a determined enemy is to tell that enemy that we are less than determined. Yet that is exactly what the Iraq supplemental financing bill does. What message do we send our brave military men and women when we won't guarantee them the resources and equipment that they need without including a litany of restrictive and arbitrary timetables? What will our soldiers on the front lines of this war think when they hear that salmon fisheries and spinach growers are being used to buy votes? This Iraq supplemental bill is just one more step in what has become a long list of unprecedented attempts by this majority to accept defeat at any cost. For those of us in Washington, we get to face this moment in the warmth and comfort of our homes and our offices. For so many Americans, they will face this moment in the harsh reality of a war zone. We must not forget what is at stake. Our military will not and the American people will not.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I begin, I do want to set the record straight a little bit. I think it is important for us to appreciate and for America to appreciate that the comments by Members on the other side, who have stated over and over that there seems to be a resistance by Members on our side of the aisle to helping individuals out after Katrina, simply is not borne out by either the facts or history, and it is not an appropriate reflection of history. The heart of the American people is immense, and we all poured out our hearts and we helped immensely when Katrina occurred. We opened our homes and our communities. In my district in the north side of Atlanta, we opened up shelters and provided great assistance, as I know men and women and boys and girls did all across this Nation. The heart of America is huge. I offer my amendment today in an effort to try to prevent further waste and fraud and abuse of Federal spending on Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts in Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, as a condition of Federal assistance, Federal grants oftentimes require State and local governments to match Federal grants or to provide a portion of matching funds with State or local spending contributions, oftentimes in the range of 10 percent. This is in order to encourage the efficient administration of the assisted activities giving local recipients an incentive for good management. Why do we do this? Mr. Chairman, I would suggest it is analogous to a copay when you go to your doctor. As a former physician, I am familiar with those, and most Americans are familiar with those. When you go to your doctor, you have a bit of a copay. And what that does is provide for you an opportunity to encourage appropriate and proper attention and oversight. It actually increases the responsibility of individuals and it increases the financial soundness of the entire system. This amendment would provide that same type of responsibility. Striking section 103 would prevent the use of Federal CDBG funds, these are Federal funds, these are hard-earned taxpayer dollars, for the local match requirements and maintain much-needed local incentives to maximize Federal assistance. I think it is also important for Americans to appreciate that Congress has already promised over $100 billion, that is with a ``B,'' since Katrina and Rita have occurred. To put that in some context, the Louisiana State budget prior to Katrina was $16 billion. Although we have held over 11 hearings and four briefings and questioned over 137 witnesses, what is needed is increased oversight of that Federal assistance. The underlying bill weakens that ability to provide that oversight. Why, I would ask, would we want to weaken that ability? In fact, a report by Representatives Waxman and Cardoza and Obey and Tanner and Holmes-Norton and Tierney by the Democratic staff on the Committee on Government Reform in August of 2006 itself identified 19 contracts that were offered or that were given during Katrina collectively worth over $8.75 billion that they themselves say have been plagued by waste and fraud and abuse, citing wasteful spending, lack of competition, mismanagement, et cetera. Examples from a GAO audit provided to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in testimony in December of last year stated just as an example nearly $17 million in potentially improper and/or fraudulent rental assistance payments to individuals, nearly $20 million in potentially improper or fraudulent payments went to individuals who are registered for both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, using the same property. Millions of dollars of improper and potentially fraudulent payments went to nonqualified aliens, including foreign students and temporary workers. Why is it, Mr. Chairman, that we would want to lower the threshold of due diligence that should be applied to spending Federal assistance when waste, fraud and abuse has already been so well documented? It is obvious to everyone that better oversight of Federal spending is needed. This amendment would assist in providing that oversight and making certain that local and State individuals would have a greater responsibility, a greater incentive to make certain that the programs and the grants that they receive, those moneys are spent in a responsible way. It is an effort to be better stewards of the American taxpayers' money, and I would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. However, the hyperbole and the emotion brought with it is curious, again in light of the remarkable assistance that the American people have provided out of their own generosity privately and the generosity that this Congress has provided to the tune of greater than $100 billion of assistance to individuals who have suffered from the greatest devastation of Hurricane Katrina. The purpose of this amendment is an attempt to move in albeit a small direction, but a small direction of fiscal responsibility. We hear comments by the Members on the other side all the time about how they want to bring new fiscal responsibility to Congress. Well, Mr. Chairman, in fact, what we have had is a step in the opposite direction ever since they have taken charge. So I would hope that Members would appreciate that this bill, again, is a small step in the direction of financial and fiscal responsibility. It does not preclude the use of previous moneys prior to this bill. If $110 billion is not enough then to provide for allowing individuals to have some local assistance use, I am not certain how much will be. So, Mr. Chairman, I again state that this is a small step for fiscal responsibility and encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to whether or not those words are eligible to be taken down.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand that his words be taken down.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The words accusing this Member of action unbecoming of the House as it relates to having Members of my district not be held to the same account.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the apology of the gentleman from Mississippi. It should be noted that it was an offer from this Member to forego what occurred over the past hour in this House to the gentleman from Mississippi during the process, and that offer was declined. But I appreciate his apology, and I accept his apology. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a remarkable privilege for each and every one of us to serve in this House of Representatives. This is the greatest deliberative body in the world, and it is the greatest deliberative body in the world because we treat one another with respect during our deliberations. Our deliberative process works because of a level of comity. It is not appropriate to impugn the motives of individuals, nor is it appropriate to call one's personal character into question. My amendment to this bill simply would move us in the direction of financial responsibility, a small direction admittedly, but in the direction of financial responsibility. To correct some historical inaccuracies that have been stated on this floor, during the 1998 floods in the Midwest, the local match that was required by our government was 25 percent. During the 2004 Florida hurricanes, the local match that was required for Federal grants was 10 percent. This amendment would simply state that more resources provided for the local communities from this remarkably generous Nation who have already provided, authorized over $100 billion for recuperation after the remarkable devastation of Hurricane Katrina, that further moneys would not be allowed to be utilized for the local match. That does not preclude this administration or the Secretary of HUD being able to waive that requirement. This amendment is a very small step in the direction of fiscal responsibility, of respecting the hard-earned taxpayer money that is sent to Washington. I would encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment that respects that hard work and moves us in the direction of accountability in an area that is desperately requiring that kind of accountability. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. May I inquire if the gentlewoman has any other speakers?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, then I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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