Tom Price

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I move to call up H.R. 475.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leadership for allowing me to host this hour this evening, an hour once again of the Official Truth Squad. The Official Truth Squad is a group of individuals who got together almost 2 years ago now, and we are somewhat frustrated and concerned about the level of not just rancor here in Congress, but the level of disinformation and the kind of information that was often being put forward in support of certain legislation that, in fact, well, Mr. Speaker, just wasn't true. So what we did is to get together, primarily, a group of freshmen from the last Congress and put in place this Official Truth Squad. Our goal, our purpose, is to raise the level of the rhetoric, to be a little more positive than is usually the case here in Washington, and to use facts. To use facts. We have a number of favorite quotes, but one we like to use frequently is one from former United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who kind of crystallized what is a real concern here in Washington, because everybody throws around their own opinions. But his quote was, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.'' We think that it is extremely helpful when we are talking about issues to talk about facts, because if we are not using facts to base the decisions we make here in Washington, if we are not using facts to reach the conclusions, then it is very likely that we will not reach the right conclusion. I have said before, Mr. Speaker, that in my former life I was a physician, and I knew if I didn't use facts and I didn't make the right diagnosis, it was virtually impossible to formulate the right treatment plan and then have the patient get well. So we can look at that as an analogy for what we are trying to do for our Nation, which is to make the right diagnosis, to formulate the right proposals and plans and policies and put them in place so that the patient that is our Nation survives and thrives and does well. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to have the opportunity once again tonight to host an hour of the Official Truth Squad; and I will be joined by a number of colleagues, and we will address two or three issues this evening. We are going to start by talking about what many people have discussed around the Nation, and it has kind of captured the attention of many in the media, Mr. Speaker, and that is this issue of the 100-hour agenda that the majority party, the Democrats, have. It is curious to look at that for a variety of reasons, but we will look specifically at the amount of time and kind of what they have been doing with that 100 hours. Secondly, we will talk about the issue of student loans. It is a bill we had here in Congress today, and we are trying to have facts back up policy as it relates to how best to provide appropriate loans for students who are trying to reach that American dream all across this Nation. Thirdly, we are going to talk a little about energy policy, something that I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, needs a lot of facts brought to the table. The common theme that I think people will appreciate if they are truly interested in looking objectively at these three issues, and so many others here in Congress, the common theme about these three issues tonight, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is broken promises. Broken promises. In fact, when you look at these issues independently, I think you will be able to see as we go through them the broken promises that have occurred just in these first 2 weeks in Congress. And why is it important, Mr. Speaker, for promises to be kept? Well, you know, we hear all the time from the other side that people voted last November for a change. And they did vote for a change; there is no doubt about it. There were a lot of things we in the majority could have done better. But people across this Nation based their votes upon information that they had. They based their votes upon what they were being told and what they were being promised by the other side. So if those promises aren't kept, then that is important. It is important for a variety of reasons. One is that the policies that were promoted and were espoused as being the be-all and end-all for our Nation aren't being carried out by the majority party. But as important as that is, Mr. Speaker, maybe even more important is the fact that when people go to the polls and they vote, and they rely on what Members of Congress who are ultimately successful have told them they were going to do, and then those things aren't done, all that does, Mr. Speaker, is breed a cynicism and a disgust with our form of government and our Representatives, and makes it so that it is extremely difficult to move forward in a positive direction for our Nation. I want to talk a little bit about the 100-hour clock, and then we will have some others, I know, who will be interested in speaking about that. There has been a lot of talk about this 100 hours, this wonderful 100 hours in which the Democrat majority was going to get all these grand things done. And it was promised, it was promised, this 100 hours. Now, what we have seen over this period of time is that that 100 hours has changed. Initially, the first 100 hours was going to be, to quote the Speaker on October 6, 2006, she said, ``In the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats win control,'' and then she went on to describe what they were going to do. The first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats take control. Then it soon morphed into, well, it will be the first 100 legislative hours. On December 1, after the election, when they began looking at what they were going to do and how they were going to make it happen, they said, on December 1, 2006, ``In our first 100 legislative hours in office we have a bipartisan and an achievable plan.'' Mr. Speaker, as you well know, that kind of went by the wayside as well. And when we called them on it, we said what 100 hours is it, the new majority leader, Mr. Hoyer from Maryland, put it best when he kind of talked about, well, we will try to do it in 100 hours. Maybe we will get it done, maybe we won't. But then he said, ``It all depends on how you are counting 100 hours.'' And he is right. He is right. It all depends on how you are counting the 100 hours. If you have the desire to deceive the American people and turn the clock on and off whenever you want to, then you get to about 33 hours, which is what the Democrat clock tells us they have taken. This is our third week, Mr. Speaker, our third week here. So what does that mean? It means that we are working about 10 hours a week. About 10 hours a week. I think the American people are working a whole lot more than 10 hours a week. A reasonable amount of time, given that we have been sworn in for about 14 days, 2 full weeks, a reasonable amount of time may be 80. And that is about the sense of how many hours we have in fact been in session. As of 7 p.m. tonight, Mr. Speaker, we will have been in session 81 hours and 53 minutes. So that is a reasonable estimate. But the total, if you really keep track of 100 hours, the total time as of noon today was 336 hours. As of noon today, 336 hours. Now, people may say, well, that doesn't make a whole lot of difference what the time is. But, Mr. Speaker, it does, because the promises were made and the promises have been broken. Again, as Mr. Hoyer says, it all depends on how you're counting 100 hours. Kind of reminds me of the quote about the definition of ``is,'' doesn't it, Mr. Speaker? We are so pleased to have many members of our conference who want to take part in the Official Truth Squad, and tonight we have a new friend to me and to our conference, Congressman David Davis, the gentleman from Tennessee, who is a freshman. This is his first term in Congress. He began a small business, a very successful individual back in Tennessee, and he has great perception on the processes of legislation because he, like I, served 8 years in his State legislature. So I am very, very pleased to welcome Congressman Davis to the floor this evening to share a few words with us about the first 100 hours, the first couple of weeks, and his experiences. I welcome you and would be glad to yield.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you so much for your wonderful words of wisdom and sharing your personal story. It really is extremely helpful and pertinent and apt. You call this a travesty. It really is a travesty, because what has happened is that the hopes and dreams of so many Americans have been raised by the rhetoric that we have heard from the other side. In fact, if you look at this again, and you see over a 5-year period of time, the rate decreases for a mere 6 months to 3.4 percent and then shoots right back up to 6.8 percent. It really isn't fulfilling a promise; as my good friend from North Carolina said, it is breaking a promise. I think that the American people are paying attention, and over a period of time, this will just add up to their frustration about this kind of hypocrisy and this kind of leadership. My good friends on the other side of the aisle, for the past 2 years or so, have been talking about what they call ``third-party validators'' to make it so that they can cite individuals that are saying that what they are contending is the case. We have got some third-party validators on this. I have before me a couple of quotes from some articles written in some very prominent newspapers yesterday and today. The first is from today's Wall Street Journal. This is about these student loans. It says, quote, ``The ostensible goal is to make college more affordable, but such a move could well wind up having the opposite effect.'' This bill, that is, could wind up having the opposite effect. Further, in the absence of all of this subsidization, colleges would have to be more cautious about raising tuition because their customers would be affected more directly. The biggest winners from this latest subsidy will be the relatively well off professors and administrators who run higher education. ``Ultimately increasing the government's role is a recipe for making college less affordable.'' Then from the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, from a gentleman who is quoted here, Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of financialaid.org for students. He says, ``It's a great sound bite, cutting rates in half, but it is an incredibly expensive proposal with very little student aid benefit.'' ``Very little student aid benefit.'' ``Congress would be better off spending the money on something else, like increasing the Pell Grant,'' which isn't increased with this bill, offered to the neediest students as aid that graduates don't need to pay back,'' Kantrowitz said. Mr. Speaker, really it is just another broken promise, and it is truly, truly a shame to have this be one of the hallmarks of these first ``six for six,'' these proposals that come forward. And virtually every one of them doesn't live up to the promise that was made. Would the promises that were made be the proposals that I would bring to the floor? Well, not likely, Mr. Speaker. But I do believe that it is important that promises that are made for our constituents be promises that are kept when you are in control, in power, in Congress. Otherwise, we do a discredit and disservice to our entire electoral system. How are the American people supposed to be able to decide for whom they should vote, if regardless of what an individual says it is not what they do? I believe in an individual's word, and I believe it is important that individuals make honest comments when they are running for office. In fact, that is not what we have seen to date, Mr. Speaker, and that is very, very troubling, to me and to many of my constituents and many folks around the Nation. I want to switch gears a little bit now, Mr. Speaker, to the issue that will be on the floor tomorrow in the United States House of Representatives. It will be H.R. 6, a bill that has to do with energy policy, national energy policy. The upshot of the bill is this: Mr. Speaker, as we talked about before, it will be the first time that the Democrats have very directly raised taxes on the American people. It took them 14 days to decide that they were going to do it, not a long time. But who are they going to raise taxes on? Well, the Democrat energy plan that will be introduced tomorrow, and I will have some information on it, will be a tax increase on American oil companies. Yup, they are going to tax American oil companies because there is a lot of sentiment and anger out there about energy prices. But what happens to foreign oil companies? Not a thing. Not a thing, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you talk about a travesty. That is a travesty. This bill tomorrow will drive up our dependence on foreign oil. Again, I want to go to some third-party validators. An article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday talked about this bill and said if you increase the cost of domestic oil production by $10 billion, you are ensuring that U.S. imports of OPEC oil will rise and domestic production will fall. Mr. Speaker, I think it ought to be a goal and my constituents back in the Sixth District in Georgia believe that we ought to be utilizing American resources for Americans, having American energy for Americans. There is a three-pronged way to do that: Conversation, utilizing resources and alternative fuel. What we are doing is increasing the amount of foreign oil being used. It doesn't make any sense at all. It doesn't make any sense at all. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to say the House energy bill is nearly a carbon copy of California's Proposition 87. That 2006 ballot initiative would have taxed California's home-produced oil in order to subsidize green technology alternatives. California is a fairly liberal State, the home State of our Speaker. Maybe that is where they got this idea. California is a fairly liberal State, but even those voters understood that Proposition 87 would have damaged the State's home oil and gas industry, increased foreign oil consumption and raised the energy bills for State residents, and it was clobbered at the polls. This is a quote from the Wall Street Journal. ``The House will plow ahead anyway, but let's hope the Senate has more wisdom.'' I include a copy of that article for the Record, Mr. Speaker. [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 16, 2007] The OPEC Energy Security Act House Democrats have finally released the details of their ``Energy Security Bill,'' which will be voted on this week, and they must be cursing their rotten luck. Just when they want to stick it to Big Oil for alleged price gouging, oil and home heating costs are plunging. Never mind; this was a campaign theme amid $3 gasoline, and a detail like $2 gas isn't about to stop Democrats now. This bill is said to promote America's energy independence, but the biggest winner may be OPEC. This is a lengthy, complicated bill, but the central idea is simple: Raise taxes on domestic oil producers and then spend the money to subsidize ethanol, solar energy, windmills (so long as they're not on Cape Cod), and so on. But if you increase the cost of domestic oil production by $10 billion, you are ensuring that U.S. imports of OPEC oil will rise and domestic production will fall. The bill also includes a ``Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve'' fund for alternative fuels. That sounds a lot like the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation--one of the more notorious Washington boondoggles of all time, having spent $2.1 billion of tax dollars on alternative fuels before declaring bankruptcy. Today there is no under-investment by the private sector in alternative energy. The research firm New Energy Finance has found that between 2004 and 2006 investment in alternative energy doubled to $63 billion. Venture capital funding of green-energy technologies has quadrupled since 1998. The Democrats also insist that the big five oil companies have received sweetheart deals from the government that have ripped off taxpayers. So let's take a closer look. The most controversial issue involves $6 billion in royalty payments that oil companies are said to owe the government for oil pumped from federal waters. The facts suggest otherwise. These were leases for drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico signed between oil companies and the Clinton Administration's Interior Department in 1998-99. At that time the world oil price had fallen to as low as $10 a barrel and the contracts were signed without a requirement of royalty payments if the price of oil rose above $35 a barrel. Interior's Inspector General investigated and found that this standard royalty clause was omitted not because of any conspiracy by big oil, but rather because of bureaucratic bungling in the Clinton Administration. The same report found that a year after these contracts were signed Chevron and other oil companies alerted Interior to the absence of royalty fees, and that Interior replied that the contracts should go forward nonetheless. The companies have since invested billions of dollars in the Gulf on the basis of those lease agreements, and only when the price of oil surged to $70 a barrel did anyone start expressing outrage that Big Oil was ``cheating'' taxpayers out of royalties. Some oil companies have voluntarily offered to renegotiate these contracts. The Democrats are now demanding that all these firms do so--even though the government signed binding contracts. The Democratic bill strong-arms oil companies into renegotiating the contracts or pay a $9 per barrel royalty fee from these leases. If the companies refuse, they lose their rights to bid for any future leases on federal property. So at the same time that the U.S. is trying to persuade Venezuela and other nations to honor property rights, Congress does its own Hugo Chavez imitation. Are American taxpayers worse off because of these leasing agreements? Hardly. It's fortunate these contracts were issued when oil prices were so low, because the oil discovered from those leases will do precisely what the Democratic energy bill will not: reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. One of the largest oil deposits in the Gulf was recently discovered as a result of these leases. Democrats also want to raise about $5 to $6 billion by snatching away alleged tax breaks for Big Oil in the Republicans' 2005 energy bill. Sorry, that isn't true either. The Congressional Research Service reports that the net impact of the 2005 energy bill was to raise taxes on the oil and gas industry by $300 million. Nor does it make sense to repeal a domestic oil company's eligibility for a 2004 tax cut that reduced the effective corporate income tax rate to 32% from 35% on U.S. manufacturers. This tax cut increases the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers that are now penalized by a U.S. corporate tax rate that is among the highest in the industrialized world. Our objection is that every U.S. company should pay the same, lower rate. The House energy bill is nearly a carbon copy (if we can still use the word ``carbon'' in polite company) of California's Proposition 87. That 2006 ballot initiative would have taxed California's home-produced oil in order to subsidize ``green technology'' alternatives. California is a fairly liberal state, but even those voters understood that Prop 87 would have damaged the state's home oil and gas industry, increased foreign oil consumption, and raised the energy bills of state residents. It was clobbered at the polls. The House will plow ahead anyway, but let's hope the Senate has more wisdom.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to also refer to some good work done by the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a group of individuals who talks about responsibility, talks about making certain that individuals have opportunities to succeed in our Nation, and they came out with a memo to Speaker Pelosi citing this bill that is coming on the floor tomorrow, H.R. 6, saying that it risks making energy more expensive. There are a number of quotes I would like to refer to, Mr. Speaker. First, it says, ``The public has responded with anger to recent high energy prices,'' and that certainly is true as I go home and hear what folks are concerned about, especially when gas was up around $3 a gallon people were very concerned, and understandably so, and home heating oil and all the like increasing, and that puts many individuals in significant trouble. It goes on to say, ``Doing something about energy prices is understandably high on the agenda.'' No doubt about it. ``Unfortunately, the wrong approach to meeting Americans' energy needs is H.R. 6. H.R. 6 will at best do nothing to reduce gasoline prices, and could actually increase them over the long term.'' They go on to describe very clearly the consequences of what this will do, increasing taxes on the American oil companies, which will drive America to be more dependent on foreign oil. Mr. Speaker, that doesn't make any sense. When I go home and explain things like that to my constituents back in Georgia, they say, well, why in Earth would you do something foolish like that? And all I can tell them is, well, it appears to be that the other side thinks that hollow rhetoric is what the American people want, that they aren't interested in real substance. This Heritage Foundation memo goes on to say, ``The underlying assumptions that the domestic oil and gas sector is currently undertaxed may have been popular campaign rhetoric, but it is not supported by the evidence. Total income taxes paid by this sector reached a record $71 billion in 2005, the last year for which there is data available. This is up from $48 billion in 2004 and $32 billion in 2003.'' So, Mr. Speaker, what we see is that as revenues increase to oil companies, taxes increase, the amount that they pay in taxes increases as well. What happens with H.R. 6? ``Most importantly, H.R. 6 will cause harm in the long run by discouraging investment in new domestic drilling for oil and gas.'' If you tax something, you get less of it. That is an economic principle that my friends on the other side of the aisle seem not to appreciate. If you tax something, you get less of it. ``America's demand for energy is growing, along with its economy.'' Again, that is the three-prong approach needed for energy: Conservation, utilizing responsibly American resources, and then alternative fuel. But I think it is important, as this memo goes on to state, that we learn from history. The bottom line is that H.R. 6 will raise taxes and will reduce domestic supplies of oil and gas, it will increase imports to fill that void, and it will ultimately increase prices for consumers at the pump and for energy supplies. How do we know that? Well, this is the lesson of the infamous windfall profit tax on oil firms that was imposed under the Carter administration in 1980. It was repealed ultimately under the Reagan administration in 1988. But, Mr. Speaker, people around the Nation who knew what was happening at that time will recognize, and this will kind of ring a bell, it will remind them of what happened in 1980. This goes on to say, ``In 1980, anger at Big Oil,'' and a lot of people were mad at Big Oil over high prices, ``led to this punitive tax, the windfall profit tax. But America learned the hard way that this approach does not benefit the American people. According to the Congressional Research Service, the windfall profits tax reduced domestic oil production between 3 and 6 percent.'' Mr. Speaker, let me say that again. This tax, similar to the one that the House is about to vote on tomorrow, reduced domestic oil production between 3 and 6 percent. It increased oil imports between 8 and 16 percent. This made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil. We ought to take pains to avoid repeating that energy policy blunder. This goes on to say, ``The best thing that can be said for the proposed tax changes and royalty relief provisions in H.R. 6 is that they might not be large enough to seriously reduce domestic energy production, in which case they would not cause much harm. But even so, they set a bad precedent, and if repeated in subsequent bills, could do as much damage as the infamous windfall profits tax.'' So if the past is any guide to the future, most of the money in H.R. 6 will be wasted. On the other hand, these tax revenues, if left in the hands of the energy companies themselves, will be reinvested. And how do we know that? Well, in 2005, the energy industry reinvested $131 billion, $131 billion, an amount that at that time actually exceeded and was higher than their net income of $119 billion for the year. So what is the better way? Well, as this memo goes on to describe, Mr. Speaker, ``The better way, the real answer to high energy prices, is not to tinker with tax and royalty rates on existing domestic energy supplies, but it is to expand those supplies so that more oil and gas become available. Recent Department of Interior studies conducted pursuant to the 2005 energy bill confirm that the United States has substantial oil and natural gas deposits.'' Without a doubt. ``These studies also show that much of these offshore and onshore resources are off limits due to legal and regulatory constraints.'' This next sentence, Mr. Speaker, kind of caught my eye. ``In fact, America remains the only nation on Earth,'' the only nation on Earth, ``that has restricted access to a substantial portion of its domestic energy potential.'' We are the only nation on Earth that does this. And why we think that there is no connection between that and us being more reliant on foreign oil today than we ever have been is beyond me. It doesn't make any sense. Again, Mr. Speaker, my constituents back home don't think it makes any sense either. In the early seventies, when we all waited in those gas lines and pounded our fist on the dashboard and said never again, we will never be this reliant on foreign oil again, and all of us who can remember that vividly know that sense of emotion and know that sense of frustration as the gas shortages in the early seventies occurred. But the dirty little secret, Mr. Speaker, is at that time we were about 25 percent reliant on foreign oil. Now we are about 60 percent reliant on foreign oil. And if the Democrat majority has its way, we will be even more reliant on foreign oil, because what we are doing is punishing American companies who assist us in trying to have a greater production of American resources. This article goes on to say, ``Reducing the restrictions on domestic exploration and drilling, not rewriting the Tax Code or revising royalty agreements,'' as in the bill to be dealt with tomorrow, ``will allow for greater supplies and lower prices in the years ahead, and by expanding the resource base it would lead to far greater increases in tax and royalty revenues than H.R. 6 ever could.'' So if my good friends on the other side of the aisle are truly interested in having more money, more taxes to spend as they see fit, to increase the power of government, they would be well advised to allow for increasing production, which would increase the ability for them to receive greater tax revenue. This should be the main focus of any genuinely pro-consumer energy policy; that is to not tinker with the tax policy and the royalty policy. Again, a good energy policy, a quality energy policy, is one that we dealt with last year in Congress, Mr. Speaker. It was primarily three- pronged. One, it dealt with conservation. This bill tomorrow doesn't do significantly anything with conservation. And it encourages Americans to do all they can to conserve, because certainly all of us can do more to make certain we are not utilizing resources that are so, so precious. Second is to make certain that we utilize American resources responsibly. Again, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, America remains the only nation on Earth that has restricted access to a substantial portion of its domestic energy potential. Finally, the solution in the long run and the long term is, indeed, alternative fuel, and we worked diligently to try to make certain that we had resources that would be put forward for hydrogen fuel cells and encouraging inventiveness on the part of the American entrepreneur, because I know, as I suspect you do, Mr. Speaker, that when the American entrepreneur puts his or her mind to it, there is nothing that they are not able to do. So tonight, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have had this opportunity to come before the House and to share with this House and with you, Mr. Speaker, and with the American people three issues: the issue of process here in the United States House of Representatives, the 100- hour clock; the issue of student loans, the interest on student loans; and the issue of energy policy. I mentioned at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that the common thread between those three issues tonight, that the majority party has brought to us, are really broken promises. It made multiple promises on the campaign trail, and it truly is a shame that promises kept on the campaign trail do not appear to be promises that will be kept in their majority in Congress. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the American people are understanding this. When I go home, I hear people's frustration about a lack of leadership, the broken promises that have occurred even in this short 2 weeks in Congress. Mr. Speaker, we are a wonderful and great Nation, and it is an incredible privilege to represent my constituents in this House, this House of Representatives. I know that the challenges that we face as a Nation are not Democrat challenges and they are not Republican challenges. They are American challenges, and when we work together, we come up with the best solutions. So I would encourage the Speaker to reread her words of the comments she made to this Chamber, to this United States House of Representatives on that very first day. I look forward to the day when we do, in fact, have the most open and honest Congress. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, we have not reached that day yet.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate that because I think it is important to highlight that. But I think that what you said, I don't want folks to miss the fact that, and I was stunned when I learned this with the bill that came to the floor today, and I suspect you were as well, and that is that the bill that was on the floor today by the Democrat majority will not assist a single undergraduate student in this Nation. Not one. Isn't that the truth? And I yield back.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentlelady yield for just a moment?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for participating this evening, and I appreciate your perspective. You have come with a wealth of knowledge and information, especially in the health care issues, but also your legislative experience. And I think you are right. I think that the American people did indeed vote for change. And you outlined a number of the issues that I suspect, had the other side run, during the campaign, on those issues, that the vast majority of the American people, Mr. Speaker, would have said well, that is not what I mean. To not reveal to the American people what kind of votes are occurring in committee? That is not democracy in action. Doing away with the super majority. We know why they did away with the super majority don't we now, because they are about to raise taxes tomorrow, and they couldn't have done it if it required a super majority. To have the United Nations have some significant control over portions of U.S. foreign policy, that is not the kind of change that the people were interested in. And you used one of my favorite lines, and that is that the special interests that you have are the constituents that you represent. And it is so true, that when people in this Chamber talk about special interests, the fact of the matter is the only special interests we ought to be concerned about are the constituents that we represent. And so I can't thank you enough for your participation tonight and the wisdom that you bring and the truth. We don't call it the Official Truth Squad for nothing. And you spoke words of truth and good fact and we appreciate that. I want to move on, Mr. Speaker, to a couple of other issues. But before I do present a specific issue, I want to highlight some comments and a quote that come from our Speaker, from the new Speaker, that she made during her address to the first session of this Congress. And I think it is important for the American people to be reminded the difference between word and deed. People can say a lot of things. But the actions are what speak louder than words. And these are the words that she used on that first day. ``Let us join together in the first 100 hours,'' there it is again, ``to make this Congress the most honest and open in history. This openness requires respect for every voice in Congress. As Thomas Jefferson said, every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. My colleague elected me to be Speaker of the House, the entire House, respectful of the vision of our founders, the expectations of our people and the great challenges we face. We have an obligation to reach beyond partisanship and to serve all Americans.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, those are wonderful words. Would that they were true. Would that they were true. And so that brings us to the issue of student loans, the issue that was on the agenda for the House to deal with today. And I am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, that what we have here is just one of a repeated series of broken promises. This is another broken promise by this majority party. What did they promise? The promise was, this is a quote from their own publication. ``Our new direction plan will slash interest rates on college loans in half to 3.4 percent for students and to 4.25 percent for parents.'' What is the reality? Well, the reality, Mr. Speaker, is that instead of cutting rates in half across the board, the Democrats, what they did was phase in a decrease in rates over a 5-year period of time, and only for subsidized loans going to undergraduate students, not the statement that was given, not the promise that was given to the American people. And Mr. Speaker, remember when promises are made and promises are broken, it does a disservice to all of America and it creates a distrust in our institution. But more importantly, this whole issue of decreasing student loan interest rates, once the fixed rate for this one category, just one category, reaches 3.4 percent, which occurs in July of 2011, it doesn't get there until July of 2011, but once it gets there it is only in effect for 6 months. The fixed rate returns to its original rate on January 2, 2012. Mr. Speaker, that is a broken promise. That is a broken promise if I ever saw one. And what it means is that the American people decrease their trust. They loose their trust in their leadership. And certainly that is what is happening right now across this Nation as this Nation sees the broken promises that are being piled up one after another. I am pleased to be joined by another good friend and colleague, a member of the Official Truth Squad coming to the floor and assisting in bringing truth and facts and information to the American people, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee, who has again had a wealth of experience here in Congress, but also wonderful experience back home, and looks out for those special interests that she has, and that is her constituents at home. I welcome you this evening and yield to you and look forward to your comments.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady for participating tonight and for bringing wisdom and truth to us in this Chamber. I think the part of the challenge that we have is, this really is a difference in philosophy. It is about who ought to be in control. You highlighted that extremely well, talking about the importance of what we on the Republican side believe, and that is that students and parents ought to have the resources in order to make decisions, not government making decisions. What we have seen in this very short 100 hours, depending on how you run the clock in these first couple of weeks, what we have seen is a clear example of the government controlling all aspects of our life from student loans to prescription medication to all sorts of things, wage and price controls. This chart here is the exact chart that determines the definitions that were provided in the legislation that was on the floor tonight or today for student interest rates. Right now, as you know, Mr. Speaker, they are at 6.8 percent, and that was fixed appropriately, our side did that last time, in order to make certain that we had more students eligible for student loans. What happens over the ensuing 5 years with the bill that was passed today by the Democrats? You can see that next year the rate goes down to 6.12 percent, then down to 5.44 percent and on down until you get to 3.40 percent. But again that is only for 6 months. What happens after that 6 months? What happens on January 1, 2012? Goes right back up to 6.80. So the frustration and the disconnect that people hear at home when they think that they have been told something that would occur, but in fact, that is not what is going to occur at all, in fact, they have been sold a bill of goods. It is another broken promise. I think it is very destructive to all of us, all of us on both sides of the aisle, when people aren't able to trust what the Members are telling them in terms of what they would do would they be given the opportunity to lead. We are joined again this evening by another dear friend, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx from North Carolina, who is a stalwart on the Official Truth Squad, and she brings such wonderful wisdom. In this instance, she probably has more knowledge about this than virtually anybody else, that is because she was a college president back in North Carolina. I welcome you and thank you for your participation tonight. I look forward to your comments.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Can the Chair explain how a motion to recommit will be in order given that the committee hasn't met, formed or adopted any rules?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Does the rule under which we are considering H.R. 5 allow for an amendment to H.R. 5?

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Can the Chair tell me whether or not the committee reported the bill out?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, under what rule are we considering H.R. 5?

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time to discuss this matter. Madam Speaker, the speeches and claims that we have heard from the other side sound so wonderful. They sound so good. If only this bill did what they say. Madam Speaker, this bill is the hollow fulfillment of a solemn promise. It is the epitome of form over substance. And, Madam Speaker, it would be humorous if it weren't so serious. It would be humorous if it didn't increase the hopes and dreams of young people around this Nation only to callously and knowingly dash those hopes and dreams. A couple of specific items. This really is bait and switch. Supporters of this bill contend that a borrower with $13,800 of subsidized debt will save up to $4,400. This assumes that they will see 4 years of loans made at the 3.4 percent rate. Under this legislation, however, no borrower will get more than one year of the 3.4 percent rate. And what happens in 2012? The rate goes right back up to 6.8 percent. Bait and switch. It is a shell game. It will result in damaging cuts to the program that has worked well for the vast majority of colleges in this country and in my own district, and not one single new undergraduate will be helped by this legislation. Not one. It is the fulfillment of a hollow promise. Very, very sad. And it is the principle. Finally, as matter of principle, Madam Speaker, this proposal is a political gimmick. The majority proposes to rob $6 billion from the private sector loan programs, programs that work to not only offer and provide funding for college but also use market competition to drive down rates and offer borrower benefits the government can't match. And what will they do with the money? They will lower some rates for a short time on some borrowers who have in common only the fact that they have either graduated or left school and don't need the help as much as those who may lose the benefits and services that were cut in order to lower the rates. It is a shame that those of us who desire to have a real debate about government's role in assisting middle class students achieve the American Dream of higher education are instead asked to support an expensive counterproductive cut in a student loan program that is working. Madam Speaker, this would be humorous if it weren't so serious. I strongly support financial assistance for students who are in true financial need. Sadly, H.R. 5 is not a bill that will accomplish any of that. I urge my colleagues to support a commonsense recommit that will indeed help students who are in financial need, and oppose the underlying bill.

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

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today we will take up the Medicare prescription drug program, a program where costs were $13 billion lower than projected in 2006; needed life-saving drugs are available; and 80 percent of the beneficiaries are supportive and satisfied with the program. So what problems are the Democrats trying to solve? Theirs is really a solution in search of a problem. The Democrats think that Washington can make better decisions than the American people about very personal medical matters. And what happens when the government gets more involved? Things become more bureaucratic and more expensive. As a physician, I know how difficult it is to take care of patients, oftentimes because so many non-medical people are making medical decisions. If H.R. 4 is adopted and becomes law, Washington bureaucrats will decide which drugs will be available for patients, not from a scientific or safety standpoint but purely based upon money. That is not the way we ought to be making health care decisions. Those decisions ought to be made by patients and doctors.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is a solution truly in search of a problem. We have heard of the success of the current program. We have heard a lot about special interests. Well, I rise to tell you that the patients of this Nation are my special interests. As a physician, I have seen and know that increased governmental involvement will decrease the drugs available and will harm patients. Some say, well, the VA system works just fine, and the government negotiates prices there; why not use that same system? Well, there is no way to compare those two systems, Mr. Speaker. They are absolutely apples and oranges. VA is a closed system. Medicare is an open system that offers choice that patients want. VA has no retail pharmacy benefits, none. Medicare provides access to community pharmacists, where many seniors receive great information and support. I have worked in the VA. I know what it means when they offer you, when they give the physicians a list of drugs that they are able to provide the recipients in a VA system. It doesn't work. It is a decreased formulary. There are those who think that they are going to get the pharmaceutical companies by adopting this bill. Mr. Speaker, all they will do is hurt patients. We will ultimately see higher costs, fewer drugs available, less quality health care and patients harmed. Those supporting H.R. 4 think that they know what is best for patients. We simply believe that as a matter of principle it is patients and doctors who should be making personal health care decisions, including the medications used.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, you know, negotiation sounds good, but what happens when the government negotiates? It doesn't mean negotiate; it means price-fixing, the setting of prices decided by the government. That is the only thing that will be allowed. This will, by its very design, decrease the number of medications available to seniors and ultimately to all Americans. This isn't just about Medicare's prescription drug program. This is a philosophical question about who ought to be making medical decisions, government bureaucrats or patients and physicians. We believe, as a matter of principle, it ought to be patients and physicians.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you so much, Dr. Gingrey. It is a great pleasure to share the floor with you once again and talk about an issue that is so very, very important, not just to seniors but to all Americans. And I appreciate, as has been said, your leadership on this issue. It has been wonderful and greatly appreciated. You are serving extremely well in this area, and I appreciate that. I also want to point out to the Speaker, as I know he knows, and to other Members of Congress that I think it is instructive to note that the individuals who have come to the floor tonight to talk about this issue are physicians or at least were physicians in their former lives. And I think that is helpful to think about, because the individuals who are charged with caring for the health of this Nation, the physicians all across this Nation understand and appreciate that the consequences of government decisions can oftentimes be huge in their effect on the ability to provide quality care for the patients of this Nation. So we come down here tonight and talk about an issue that is of just most importance to American people and to all seniors who participate in the Medicare program, and we do so because we have been on the other side, the other end of these decisions. And when decisions are made in Washington that provide for greater control of health care by Washington, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that always, always, by and large, results in a decrease in the quality of care that is able to be provided. I would also wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I think this is an issue that really is part of a bigger question. And the bigger question is, who is it that ought to be making fundamental personal health care decisions? And it appears that we in this body have a philosophical difference about who that ought to be. My colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle tend to believe that the decisionmaking authority in those personal health care decisions ought to rest with patients and with physicians, that that is where those decisions ought to be. And I know that my colleagues who are here this evening would concur with that, because we know how difficult it is when somebody else, especially a nonmedical person, is making those kinds of decisions and it most often adversely affects the health care of that patient. So we believe as a matter of principle that patients and physicians ought to be making health care decisions, including which medication to utilize, because patients and physicians are the ones that know best which medication that ought to be utilized. Our good friends on the other side of the aisle it appears believe as a matter of principle that government ought to be making those decisions, that government bureaucrats, Washington bureaucrats who may or may not have any fundamental knowledge about, in this instance, personal health care issues, that government ought to be making those decisions. So I think it is important for people to appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that that really is one of the fundamental principles that we are talking about here: Who ought to be making health care decisions? Should it be patients and physicians, or should it be the government? My good friend mentioned that this was a solution in search of a problem, as I had said before, and it really is. And so when you have an issue like that, I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, to look at why is it that the Democrat majority is even attempting to solve this problem that I would suggest doesn't exist? And I would use as rationale for the fact that there is no problem to solve so many issues that have been brought up here on the floor already and in this debate. The cost of the benefit to seniors all across this Nation in 2006 are 30 percent lower, 30 percent lower, $13 billion lower in 2006 than were projected. The projected costs over 10 years are down over 21 percent which equals $197 billion. The premiums are down over 40 percent over that that was projected. And in fact, if you think about the last time that the majority party, the now majority party tried to effect this program, one of their proposals was to mandate, was to dictate, was to make certain, was to guarantee that the premium per month for each and every senior would be $35, $35 a month. They wanted to make certain that it would be absolutely that amount and not a penny less. And in fact, what we have seen is that the current premium per month is about $22 or $23. So if the other side had had its ways 2 years ago, 3 years ago, when this was adopted, seniors all across this Nation would be paying $12 to $13 a month more, more on top of the premium that they are already paying, if the other side had had their way. So I think it is important to think about and to appreciate what they have had in mind all along. Why they want to do that is beyond me, but I would suggest to you that it has something to do with whom they want to be in control of these health care decisions. And finally, Mr. Speaker, I would tell you, looking at this issue, that it really is a solution in search of a problem. The Medicare beneficiaries all across this Nation, over 80 percent of them are pleased with this program, are happy with the program, believe that it helps them greatly in caring for their health. And that is in a program that has over 90 percent of those who are eligible to participate involved. So 80 percent of those participating are pleased with it. So you have got to ask, why? What kind of problem are we trying to solve? It is also important, I think, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, to ask the question, if the program is working so well, why is it working so well? And as has already been mentioned, there is this big kind of proposal that is being put forward now that would say that the government ought to be able to negotiate, that nobody is negotiating drug prices. Well, in fact, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, the plans themselves right now are negotiating and negotiating extremely well. Otherwise, you wouldn't see the kind of savings that we have already seen in just a year's history of the program. Plans are negotiating with both pharmaceutical companies and with pharmacists, and, in fact, that is what is resulting in the decrease in premiums that seniors all across this Nation are seeing. So the system is truly working extremely well in spite of all the naysayers on the other side. I want to bring up again what happens when the government gets involved, and my good friend has a poster down there about government- negotiated prices on certain drugs and the actual cost. And the numbers are striking. They truly are. And the reason that it is important to look at what happens when the government gets involved with a negotiation is to remember what negotiators have to be able to do. The individual doing the negotiating has to, in this instance, be able to say to the drug company: If you won't meet my price, then I am not going to put your drug on the formulary, on the list of drugs that are available for patients. However, when the government is doing all the negotiating, what will happen is that they will say: If you don't meet my price, you won't be able to have your drug on this formulary, and the consequence of that is that your drug will not be available to seniors or physicians who are trying to make those personal health care decisions. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be fewer drugs available. Fewer drugs available. That is what happens when the government gets involved in the process. So the price may be lower for a period of time. I do not believe that is the case, as we have had good examples and quotes from very learned individuals in the economic system that will tell you that the government cannot dictate a lower price in this instance, but what certainly will happen is that there will be fewer drugs available. Somebody may say that is just conjecture; that is just somebody dreaming about what might happen. But if we look at a program that the government did affect relatively recently and see what happened, we can see exactly by example what happens when the government gets involved. And the program I would cite is a program called the Vaccine for Children's program, and, Mr. Speaker, folks all across this Nation may remember that there was a very robust vaccine industry in our country not too long ago, in fact, about 12 or 13 years ago, and then the government got a bright idea and said, oh, but the price for those vaccines is a little too high. In some instances they believed it was a lot too high. So instead of working on how to assist individuals who didn't have the resources with which to purchase those vaccines, what the government did was come in and say, all right, you can only charge this amount of money for that vaccine. And what happened was that we saw a huge decrease in the number of companies that now provide vaccines. In fact, it went from about 30 companies that made and did research and development on vaccines, and now in this Nation, Mr. Speaker, we only have three, three, in about 12 years. That is what happens when the government gets involved in a program. Price fixing occurs and a decrease in the quality of health care that is provided occurs, and certainly a decrease in the number of medications available. Everybody across this Nation knows that that is what happened with the vaccine program. Fewer innovations, fewer new vaccines, shortages of vaccines, and less access to vaccines. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to close and finally talk about, just to reiterate, the issue of who is making health care decisions. When I go home and I talk to my constituents at home, and I know that is true for Congressman Gingrey and Congressman Boustany and certainly when we see our former patients in the post office or at a restaurant or a church, I know that what they tell me is, please, please don't let the government get more involved in health care. And so I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that where health care decisions are made between the physician and the patient is something that is extremely important to men and women and children all across this Nation. And this issue is one of those issues that will strike a cord among people all across this Nation if the government gets involved and says, no, you may not have that drug, you may not have that medication because the price is too much. So, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I will tell you that if what is on the floor tomorrow is adopted, we will see a lower quality of health care, a decrease in access to health care, and I believe strongly that we will see patients across this Nation harmed. I know that is not what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do. At least I hope that is not what they want to do. But I will tell you that that will be the consequence of this bill if it passes tomorrow. So I am very hopeful that our friends on the other side of the aisle will recognize the consequences of decisions that they are about to make and will appreciate that, indeed, what they must do, if they truly believe in looking out for the best interest of their constituents and our former patients, is to make certain that health care decisions remain in the hands of physicians and patients. And with that, I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia once again for his leadership on this issue and for the opportunity to participate in this message tonight.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, politics is replete in the discussions that we have here in this building. There is no doubt about it. And as I mentioned before, it would be humorous if it weren't so serious. This is a remarkably serious issue. And when you hear the other side of the aisle talk about how they determined that this would be in their first blitz of legislation, again, that it is not open to discussion that could result in any change at all, no amendments being offered, hasn't gone through the committee process, no input from anybody on the minority side, and no input from any one of the freshmen legislators, when questions are asked regarding how did you decide what you would include in this first blitz, the other side of the aisle is proud to say these are issues that 80 percent plus of the American people support. That is where, Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly important to remember what Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, and that is that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. And it is our responsibility as leaders in this Nation to remember that we enact policies that have consequences, and the consequences of not enacting appropriate policy when it comes to health care is not just that somebody loses a little more money or has to pay a few more taxes or is inconvenienced to a certain degree. The consequences of legislation that relates to health care, when it is the wrong policy, results in decreasing quality of health care and harming individuals and even, Mr. Speaker, resulting in shortening the lives of individuals in this Nation. The consequences of this kind of decision are huge, are significant. And when the majority party says, well, we are just doing it because 80 percent of the American people think it is the right thing to do, leadership, Mr. Speaker, means that you investigate the situation and you lead. You lead with information that is factual information. And it distresses me greatly that we find ourselves in this first week of this new 110th Congress with a new majority who is all excited about the prospects of leading and, in fact, what they are doing is putting forward an issue that will result in a lower quality of health care for American citizens and will result in harming, truly harming, many of our constituents. I am pleased to be joined now by my good friend and physician colleague in Congress, a good friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, Congressman Phil Gingrey, and I know Congressman Gingrey would like to make a few comments about the part D proposal that has come to the floor.

Mr. PRICE of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me the 2 minutes' time. I stand in support of more jobs and in support of all workers, understanding that there are consequences to what we do here and some of those consequences are unintended. When we increase the minimum wage, unless employers receive some sort of benefit, they hire fewer workers. Fewer workers. It discourages businesses from hiring the least-skilled workers who need the most assistance. Losing access to entry level positions deprives many unskilled workers of the opportunity to learn the skills that they need to advance up the career ladder. Did you know that businesses actually cut the number of unskilled and disadvantaged workers on their payrolls after an increase in the minimum wage and that raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour would cost at least 8 percent of affected workers their jobs? Minimum wage jobs are entry level positions that teach career skills that make workers more productive and enable them to earn a raise. Two-thirds of minimum wage earners earn a raise within a year. And, finally, why are there conflicting reports? How can each side produce numbers in their support? Well, it is because it is difficult if not impossible to count the results. Why? Because regardless of what we do here, regardless of what we make the minimum wage, it is really zero. What we can't count are jobs that are never offered. If we pass this, small businesses don't miraculously get more money to pay workers, so they hold off on hiring, and those jobs that are never offered are never counted. I urge my colleagues to support a commonsense plan that will increase the minimum wage and increase business resources to provide that wage and save and increase the number of jobs.