Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. If the Delegates and Resident Commissioner are allowed to vote on everything in the Committee of the Whole and they vote on procedural issues that may in fact affect the substantive nature of a bill, and if a procedural vote is lost within a decisive margin, is there a mechanism to have a separate vote in the full House on that procedural vote?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. On that procedural vote?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair. Are the Delegates and Resident Commissioner permitted to vote on the question of the Committee rising?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair for his indulgence.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have just received a copy of this amendment, but I am somewhat bemused by the amendment. I guess that what the author means is that he is saying that he doesn't believe that the assistant administrator of the Office of Research and Development of the EPA would even consider these institutions. It would be my belief and understanding that this individual would consider all institutions where there is appropriate research being done that could be helpful. I am somewhat bemused by it. I am tempted to offer an amendment that would have the individual look at institutions in my fair State that are doing wonderful work. In fact, each one of us could offer amendments that would identify particular institutions in our jurisdiction.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comment. I assume that the gentleman would then believe that all 435 and now 440 of us ought to offer amendments to have the individual at EPA look specifically at the institutions in our jurisdiction. And doesn't that really do a disservice to the process that we are in in having the EPA look at the appropriate institutions that may have the greatest amount of knowledge?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I remain amused and bemused. We all acknowledge the contributions of land grant institutions and historically black colleges and universities. We have those in our good State of Georgia. They make wonderful contributions, absolutely wonderful contributions. I think this amendment, however, points out kind of the folly of what is going on here with this bill. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this legislation came through last year under suspension, passed by, as I understand it, unanimous vote. I think that we will all support this because it is motherhood and apple pie. But it doesn't add to the appropriate discussion of the real issue here, which is trying to make certain that we have an energy- independent policy for our Nation. I think that we are just kind of playing on the margins, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, we have dealt with on the floor this morning now a second-order amendment. If, when we get to the point of voting, the recorded vote on the second-order amendment, if that vote passes, but it is not decisive, meaning that the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner don't make the difference, is there any way for a Member to get a revote on that second-order amendment once we go into the full House?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. That includes the specific second-order amendment that would have been offered; is that correct?

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Texas. And I guess one of his comments that this bill would save $30 billion on a $10 million investment means that he would support dynamic scoring through CBO, which is something that we have been begging for for a long time. So I know that you will endeavor to work with us as we move toward dynamic scoring for CBO. But I find it amusing, distressing actually, that the other side continues to break promise after promise. I read now from ``A New Direction for America,'' which is what the majority party put out prior to the last election, and they 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.'' Well, fiscal discipline clearly is not the order of the day today nor is pay-as-you-go. The other side will tell you they have pay-as-you-go; but, in fact, it does not apply to this sort of bill. So it doesn't apply to authorization. So when rules are rules only when you want them to be rules, then they really aren't rules at all. So it really is not pay-as-you-go. It is go and spend, which is the program that the majority party has in place. This is a great bill. This is a great bill. And I think probably $10 million is an appropriate amount of resources of the American people's hard-earned taxpayer money to spend on this kind of endeavor. However, we are charged with developing the priorities of the Federal Government, and, in fact, I believe this to be a priority. But the majority party is charged, when they bring a bill like this to the floor, to say, well, this is indeed a priority but something else has to go to the bottom of the list, in fact, fall off the list to the tune of $10 million. That is what PAYGO is. You say we are going to spend $10 million on this, but we are not going to spend it on this. Well, in fact, the majority party hasn't done that. What they have said is that we are just going to continue to spend and spend and spend and spend. Mr. Chairman, that is not responsible. That is not responsible spending. That is not responsible use of the hard-earned taxpayer money. So I would hope that the new majority would, in fact, embrace the policy that they talk about, which is making certain that PAYGO rules are in effect. In fact, the promise was to have PAYGO rules be in effect for everything, for everything that came to the floor. Well, we haven't seen that, and I look forward to that because I think it is the appropriate way for us to budget and for us to spend.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would be happy to yield to my good friend from Georgia.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for those comments. And I too want to commend the gentleman from Illinois for bringing this issue forward. All of us, when we were out talking to our constituents running up to the last election, all of us heard that we needed to be responsible with the taxpayers' money. So I applaud him for bringing this bill forward so that we make certain, we make certain, that we prioritize in an appropriate way on something that is as important as this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, during the Committee of the Whole, I had a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair about a second-degree amendment, and the response from the Chair may not have been accurate. So in an effort to clarify for the House, in the Committee of the Whole, if a second-order amendment passes but it is not a decisive vote, meaning that the Delegates and the Resident Commissioners weren't decisive in that passing, can any Member call for a re-vote of a second-degree amendment in the full House?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. So as I understand your answer, Madam Speaker, there is no opportunity for a Member of the House of Representatives to receive a vote in the full House on a second-order amendment from the Committee of the Whole that passed by a nondecisive margin; is that correct?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, taxpayer funded luxury travel is not accorded to our brave men and women serving the cause of liberty. However, the new Democrat leadership believes they deserve just that. While the previous Speaker of the House was afforded the use of a military aircraft as a security precaution following 9/11, it didn't include the amenities being sought by the current Democrat Speaker, room for 42 passengers, a crew of 16, state-of-the-art entertainment and communications and a private bedroom. Nonetheless, that which was good enough for prior leadership is apparently just not good enough for the new leadership. Just a few months ago, Speaker Pelosi told the American people that Democrats were committed to a new direction in the way our government does business. At a cost of $15,000 an hour it should go without saying that this is certainly a new direction, one which frankly disgusts all Americans. Mr. Speaker, spending watchdogs should be part of the new Democrat majority's budget, and they should be watching themselves. This has been a disgrace.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Exactly. I appreciate the gentleman's comments because they are absolutely true. That is why I call it Orwellian politics, bumper sticker politics, because just because they say it is so does not make it so. I appreciate your comments. I know we have got some other colleagues who are interested in shedding light and bringing truth and facts to the issues regarding the budget and the economy.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California for yielding and for organizing this and his leadership on this issue. I appreciate your perspective and your expertise as a CPA practicing before you came to Congress. I know that you have the knowledge that all of us should utilize as we talk about budget and the economy. You know, I was sitting over in my office and listening to our good friends on the other side of the aisle as they were discussing their issues before. I could not help but being amused by their comments. And you sense that they are trying to lay the groundwork now for a budget that they are going to propose, and they are going to propose it obviously with more spending, because that is what our friends on the other side of the aisle do. But I could not help but just be reminded of the Orwellian sense of how the folks on the other side of the aisle seem to govern. You know, they just seem to think that if they just say it, that it is so. All you have got to do is say it, then it is so. They passed a bill last week that they said did not have any earmarks or any special projects. In fact, it had hundred of millions of dollars of earmarks that they could have taken out; in fact, voted against taking them out. But I did want to review very briefly, before I mentioned a word or two about the budget and the economy, these wonderful Six for '06 programs that they passed. And of course they are celebrating them as if they were law. However, the Senate has not acted on any of these, so, in fact, they have not become law. And thank goodness they have not become law, because what this highlights is the hypocrisy of our good friends on the other side of the aisle. They talk about passing all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. In fact, that is not what they did. That is not what the bill did that they brought to the floor. In fact, they did not pass some of the most important recommendations that allow for communication between committees here that make it so all America would be safer. They talk about the minimum wage increase. In fact, what they would do if they increased it in the way that they wanted to is to decrease the number of jobs on America and propose this unfunded mandate on American small businesses, which actually cuts the level of employment in our Nation. The Senate has recognized that, and they are working to try to correct the damage that the Democratic House has done. They denied completely the proven results. I am a physician, practiced medicine for over 20 years before coming to Congress. And the Democratic majority here denied the proven results of adult and cord stem cell research on a bill that they passed here earlier. I suspect the Senate will have to correct the damage that they have done there as well. As a physician I recognize the importance of doctors and patients making health care decisions by themselves without governmental intervention. And what our good friends on the other side of the aisle did was, in fact, work to fix prices in the area of Medicare prescription drugs, which would decrease the number of drugs available for seniors and, in fact, harm seniors, I believe, in the health care that they receive. And consequently I think the Senate is going to have to work on fixing that. One of the remarkable hypocritical things that they did in their discussion points about decreasing student loans, in fact that is not what they did at all. What they did was pass a bill that kind of tracks down, decreases the interest on student loans, and then for 6 months cuts the interest on student loans in half, not for students, though, for graduates; cuts it for 6 months, and then, bam, at the end of that 6 months, the interest rates pop right back up. Then the most amazing thing that they have done is to tax domestic oil companies, not foreign oil companies, Mr. Speaker, not foreign oil companies. They tax domestic oil companies so that domestic oil costs more, foreign oil costs less. So what will happen is that Americans will be more reliant on foreign oil. So it is a remarkable, remarkable culture of hypocrisy and misinformation, disinformation, I call it Orwellian government, that our good friends on the other side of the aisle have promoted. I do want to mention some of economic issues that you had talked about before, the good news, remarkable news in the economy: economic growth, 3.4 percent growth in GDP over the last year; business investment up for 14 straight quarters; job growth of 7.2 million new jobs since the summer of 2003; low unemployment rate, 4.5, 4.6 percent unemployment rate. That is a rate lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s combined. Tax revenues, tax receipts are up. Deficit reduction you mentioned, Mr. Campbell, the latest numbers that are out on the 12-month rolling deficit, the budget deficit, down to $188 billion. That is the lowest that it has been since 2002. And a steady increase in labor productivity. So one would think that if our friends on the other side of the aisle were interested in a good economy, they would look at this economy and they would say, well, how did that happen? What made that happen? Were there actions that were taken by the Federal Government and Congress that resulted in those good numbers? Well, in fact, there were. And they happened in 2001 and 2003, as my friends know, and those were the tax reductions, the appropriate tax reductions on the American people, capital gains, dividends, tax reductions, and a decrease in income tax for the vast majority of Americans. What that did, as it did under President Reagan and as it did under President Kennedy, what that did was to stimulate the economy in a way that resulted in the numbers that we have seen. And so our good friends on the other side of the aisle would do well to study history. They would do well to study history. They would do well to learn from history as they try to formulate their budget and make certain that they appreciate, as we do on this side of the aisle, that Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has got a spending problem. We look forward to working with our good friends on the other side of the aisle in decreasing Washington's spending, solving those difficult challenges that we have, as my good friend from Iowa mentioned just a little bit ago, in the area of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of those automatic spenders that are comprising more and more of the budget. I look forward to working with him, I know that my friend from California does, and again I appreciate his leadership and the information that he has been bringing to the floor of the House today and to the American people. Because we are challenged with solving these problems and difficulties that we have as a Nation, we ought to do it together. We are proposing the kind of positive and uplifting messages that I think all America can embrace. I appreciate the time.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you so much for joining us again today and bringing light and truth to an issue that is so remarkably important because it gets to the bottom line for each and every American and each and every American family. What we do at home, when we have discussions about our family budget, is that we determine how much money we have to spend and then we determine what our priorities are. Depending on what those priorities are, that is how we allocate money, and we try to make certain that we set aside some savings as well for a rainy day, for a difficult time. That ought to be what the Federal Government does, as you well know, but, sadly, that appears to be not the plan of the new majority here. So it is important that we talk about family budgets, about how family budgets ought to parallel Federal budgets, government budgets. I would be pleased to yield if you have a comment.