[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 20, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6812-H6818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1945
THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the leadership
for allowing me to come to the floor this evening and spend a few
moments and talk about some of the activity that has gone on here in
the House over the past couple of weeks. This is an edition of the
Truth Squad that I am pleased to be able to host.
The Truth Squad is a group of individuals who endeavor to come to the
floor of the House and try to shed a little light, a little truth, a
little honesty on the matters that are discussed here on the House
floor. It is my privilege to come to the floor of the House tonight and
talk about the work that is being done here in the House right now and
in Congress.
On the House side, we are in the appropriations process, the time
when we determine as a Congress, as a House of Representatives, how to
prioritize, how to spend hard earned American taxpayer money. It has
been an interesting process, Madam Speaker, as you well know.
Last week we had a fascinating time that really brought light to one
of our favorite quotes and that is this quote here from Senator Patrick
Moynihan.
Senator Moynihan said that everyone's entitled to their own opinion
but no one's entitled to their own facts.
And so last week we had one of the appropriations bills come to the
floor of the House and the majority party had determined that they were
intent upon making certain that earmarks, or special projects, were
never seen by not just the American people during the process of the
debate but by Members of Congress. The appropriations process was such
that the majority party had determined that these special programs or
special projects in individuals' districts, what have come to be known
as earmarks, some people know them as pork, that these special projects
would not be seen by Members of Congress until the very end of the
process, until the conference committee occurred, and then they would
be put into the bill. The reason that that is important is that there
would be no way from a procedural standpoint or parliamentary
standpoint, no way to be able to have a Member of this House of
Representatives stand up and say, I think that we ought to have a
separate vote on spending X amount of dollars for this project. And
that's just wrong, Madam Speaker.
[[Page H6813]]
And so what we did on our side was to say, that's not what the
American people want. That's not democracy. That's not what we're here
for. That's not a process that gives honor to the House of
Representatives. That's not a process that says that, yes, we are
interested in being responsible with hard-earned American taxpayer
money. So we spent a lot of time last week trying to make certain that
that point was brought to the floor, that that point was brought to the
American people. In so doing, we got some attention. We got some
attention, because I think for a small moment that many people across
this Nation appreciated that there were people fighting as hard as they
could here in this Congress to make certain that there was some fiscal
responsibility, that there were individuals who were doing their dead
level best to make certain that if this Congress was going to spend as
much money as the majority appears to desire to spend, if we were going
to do that, that we were going to make certain that every dollar was
held accountable.
We got a lot of individuals, a lot of newspapers, a lot of press
across this Nation who agreed with us, who said, that's absolutely
right. How on earth can you have a process that hides money, that hides
money until the very last moment? That's not the way it ought to be
done. I have here a number of pages, a number of editorials that were
written all across this Nation agreeing with our perspective: Roll
call, the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the Hill, the
Washington Times, on and on and on, around the Nation far and wide,
really remarkable, Chicago Tribune, papers all across this Nation
agreed.
What they said was that they were proud of Republicans, proud of
conservative Members finally standing up and saying, no, we're not
going to have that kind of process here.
And so the majority party relented. They said, okay, we agree. We
ought not do what we said we were going to do, we're going to work to
make certain that those projects are transparent, that there is
accountability, that individuals when they present and desire to have
special projects in their district that they have their name attached
to it, something we've been fighting for for a long time. It was proof
that democracy works. It was proof that hard work and diligence and
that when you fight in that way for the American people, for the
American taxpayer, that yes, there are times when you can be
victorious. I was proud to work with my colleagues in the Republican
Conference and on the Republican side of the aisle and some of our
friends on the other side who joined us and said that you've just got
to change that.
It has been a curious situation here these past couple of weeks as
the majority party has brought appropriations bills to the floor. I am
reminded in this process as we bring up some of the remarkable
irresponsible spending that continues to go on here in Washington,
Madam Speaker, of some experience that I had back at the State level. I
represent a district in Georgia on the northern side of Atlanta, the
northern suburban Atlanta area. I served four terms in the State senate
before coming to the House of Representatives. In that process, there
were also individuals there who were interested in spending what many
of us believed was too much of hardworking American taxpayer money, and
so we came up with an award that we entitled the ``stuck pig award.'' I
was reminded of it this week, because when we have pointed out the
amount of spending, increased spending, irresponsible in many instances
spending, on the part of the majority party, you hear them squawk and
squeal. And so we came up with, at the State level, what we called the
stuck pig award and we would award it to somebody who defended the most
ridiculous kind of spending. It may be, Madam Speaker, that we need to
come up with the same kind of award here in Washington, because there
would certainly be a number of candidates for the stuck pig award. But
maybe we'll leave that for another day.
I want to highlight a number of things that happened on the floor
just today. Today we had, Madam Speaker, as you remember, the Energy
and Water appropriations bill, a bill that is very important for our
Nation, an area that sets priorities in terms of spending for our
Nation and the amount of money that ought to be spent on projects all
across this Nation that in many areas are needed desperately. Last
year, Madam Speaker, in that area of appropriations, we spent, this
Nation spent, $30.2 billion. The administration's request in the areas
where they felt appropriate to fund for this year, for fiscal year
2008, was $30.4 billion, an increase of about 0.6 percent, under 1
percent and certainly under the rate of inflation, which is what we
attempted to do when we were in the majority, was to keep these levels
increasing at a rate less than inflation. Many of us believe that we
ought to have actual decreases, but keeping it less than inflation is
certainly a step in the right direction.
But what happened this year is that the majority party brought this
bill to the floor, the appropriations bill for Energy and Water, at a
rate of spending of $31.6 billion. That's a 4.3 percent increase, which
is about three times the rate of increase that we had when we brought
the bill to the floor last year.
Now, many of us believe that that's simply too much money, that that
doesn't prioritize the Federal budget in the way that Americans across
this Nation have to prioritize their family budget. And so we offered a
number of amendments, which is really the only way that you can kind of
get to who is interested in being fiscally responsible and who isn't.
Because, Madam Speaker, as you know, people can stand up and give
speeches about anything they want and they can say anything they want,
but as Senator Moynihan said, everyone's entitled to their own opinion
but not their own facts.
We learned some facts today on the floor of the House, Madam Speaker,
about who is interested truly in fiscal responsibility. A number of us
offered amendments that would have resulted in some decrease in the
amount of spending. These amendments covered various levels. One of the
amendments offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) said
that we ought to keep the spending in this area of the appropriations,
in this area of our budgetary process, to exactly what it was last
year, to have no actual percentage increase, which results in a
functional decrease because of the rate of inflation, something that
many people believe to be responsible at a time when the Federal
Government spends more than it takes in, which the Federal Government
currently does. So Mr. Campbell offered an amendment that said you
ought to keep it at last year's level, which is about a $1.3 billion
savings.
Mr. Jordan, the gentleman from Ohio, said that may be appropriate,
but if our friends on the other side of the aisle or in this Chamber
don't think that that's a little too much to save, then I'll offer an
amendment that says we ought to keep it at the President's level, the
0.6 percent increase. What that would do would save about $1.1 billion.
I offered an amendment that said, well, there may be some people who
believe that keeping it at last year's level is not an appropriate
level, that keeping it at the level that the President and the
administration requested is not an appropriate level, that, well, then
maybe we just ought to decrease it or reduce it by 1 percent. Now,
Madam Speaker, this isn't a 1 percent cut. This would be a 1 percent
reduction in the increase. The increase is about 4.3 percent. This
would be a 1 percent reduction, increasing it about 3.3 percent. So if
you didn't believe that we ought to keep it at last year's number, if
you didn't believe that we ought to put it at the number that the
President requested, then you might believe that we ought to just
reduce spending by 1 percent, decrease it by 1 percent in the reduction
of the increase. And so we offered that amendment.
And then a final amendment, overall amendment, was offered by Mrs.
Musgrave, the gentlelady from Colorado. She said, in essence, well, you
may not believe that we ought to keep it at last year's amount, you may
not believe that we ought to go to the President's amount, you may not
believe that you ought to cut 1 percent, that may seem to be too much,
but you ought to believe that you could cut a
[[Page H6814]]
half a percent. You ought to believe that you could cut a half a
percent, so 50 cents out of every $100, that you ought to be able to
cut that amount.
Those four amendments were offered on the floor of the House today.
The fact is, Madam Speaker, that each and every one of those amendments
failed, that the vast majority of the Members of the majority party,
the Democrat Party, voted against those to carry the day. So that they
believe that, no, you ought not keep the spending level, as a matter of
fact, you ought not keep the spending level in this area of the budget
to last year. You ought not save $1.3 billion.
And they voted that you ought not have the amount of spending be at
the level that the administration, that the President requested. This
is the executive branch, the branch that is responsible for carrying
out the laws and the bills and the priorities that we pass here in
Congress, you ought not keep it at that level. You aren't interested in
saving $1.1 billion. Again, a fact.
They also said, as a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, that you don't
want to cut it 1 percent. You don't want to have a reduction of 1
percent. Remember, a reduction in the increase. Not a reduction in real
numbers but a reduction in the increase. None of these amendments would
have reduced in real dollars. All of them were a percentage reduction
in the increase.
The majority party, in fact as a majority said, no, we don't as a
matter of fact want to reduce the increase by 1 percent. Also, as a
matter of fact, Madam Speaker, they said that they didn't want to
reduce it by one-half of 1 percent. They didn't want to realize savings
that would result in a 50 cent savings out of every $100 spent by the
Federal Government in the area of Energy and Water appropriations.
Now, Madam Speaker, I don't know about you, but when times are tight
in our household, when times are tight in the household of my
constituents, when times are tight in households all across this
Nation, when American families have times when they are spending more
or budgeting more than is coming in, what they do is they look at their
budget, they look at their family budget and say, Where can we save
some money? Sometimes they say, Well, we'll just cut everything a
little bit. We'll spend a little less on everything. That's the similar
story. That's the analogy to the family budget.
But what this Congress said, what this majority party said is that,
no, we don't believe that we're not spending enough. In fact, we
believe that we ought to spend more. We ought to spend more than the
increase last year, we ought to spend more than was requested by the
administration, we just ought to spend more. And so it rings on deaf
ears, Madam Speaker, when the majority party says, and had said before
the election in November, we will rein in Federal spending.
Well, this is a clear example, once again, of what I have dubbed
Orwellian democracy, after George Orwell, the famous author, who
famously in his books demonstrated that policies of governments
oftentimes say one thing and do exactly the opposite.
{time} 2000
That's what we find now in, I believe, this majority party, is that
they say one thing and do exactly the opposite. So they say, with a
straight face, that we are reining in government spending, that we are
reining in Federal spending.
But, in fact, what's happening is a significant increase in Federal
spending and an increase of greater than the amount that they railed
against last year, which strikes me as being somewhat disingenuous and
also misleading to the American people. The American people go to the
polls every 2 years, and they vote based upon what people are going to
tell them what they are going to do. I believe before that our side of
the aisle had gotten a little wayward in terms of spending. So the
message of reining in Federal spending fell on receptive ears.
The problem is that it hasn't been followed up by action. So it's a
leadership that continues to say one thing and to do another, truly,
truly remarkable.
Now, I want to talk a little bit about the issue of taxes and the tax
increases that will be required to cover the amount of spending that
the new majority has begun to march down a path to spend. The
appropriations bill last week was an example of that, the
appropriations bill today was an example of that, and most of them, as
they come up through the 12 bills of the appropriations process will,
indeed, demonstrate the lack of fiscal responsibility.
So what the other side is going to have to do is to find revenue.
Instead of doing what our party did, and this President did, and
President Reagan did, and, in fact, President Kennedy did in order to
gain increased economic activity and in order to increase revenue to
the Federal Government, those three individuals, President Bush,
President Reagan and President Kennedy, all decreased taxes in a
somewhat nonintuitive kind of activity, increased revenue to the
Federal Government.
Because when you decrease taxes, what you do is you allow people to
keep more of their money, you allow them to keep more of their money in
their back pocket and in their pocketbook. Hence, they are able to
decide for themselves when to save or when to spend or when to invest.
When they spend, because they have more money, what results is
increased economic activity.
Well, the current majority party demonstrates clear differences
between a conservative Republican philosophy and a liberal Democrat
philosophy. The difference is that we believe taxes ought to be reduced
in order to increase economic activity. The other side clearly believes
that the taxes ought to be increased, with the peculiar notion that if
you just increase taxes enough, you will gain enough revenue to the
Federal Government to equal the appetite for spending.
So they passed a budget, and their budget would increase taxes for
every single American that pays taxes, every single American that pays
taxes. The largest tax increase in the history of our Nation was passed
by this majority just a few short months ago.
When you ask, well, what would that cover, what happens is that all
of the tax, the appropriate tax reductions of earlier in this decade,
2001 and 2003, if the budget that was adopted by this majority is
allowed to proceed over the next number of years, all of those tax
reductions go away. All of the tax increases come back.
What happens on December 31, 2010, which isn't too far away, what
happens is that the tax rates on ordinary income go from 35 percent
overnight to 39.6 percent. The capital gains tax goes from 15 percent
to 20 percent overnight. Dividends tax goes from 15 percent to 39.6,
overnight. Estate tax, this is the death tax, this is what individuals,
individuals' families, their estate has to pay when they die. It would
be 0 percent on December 31, 2010, under the majority party's budget,
and under the budget that they adopted. Again, this is the largest tax
increase in the history of our Nation. It will jump to 55 percent
overnight in 1 second.
Child tax credit, which would rest at $1,000 in 2010, would decrease
in half. It would be cut in half, decrease child tax credits by 50
percent down to $500. The lowest tax bracket, those at the lower end of
the economic spectrum who currently pay 10 percent would pay 15
percent, a significant increase in their taxes, nearly about half of
what they would currently pay.
Now, it just doesn't make any sense to have that kind of tax policy
in place when, in fact, what they have said before is that they would
responsibly spend American hard-earned taxpayer money and be fiscally
responsible. Instead, what they have done is gone back to a tried and
true method of tax and spend. So everybody's taxes, nearly $400
billion, will shoot up virtually overnight.
Now, in their budgetary process, and that might be all right for some
people, that whole tax increase and gaining, supposedly gaining new
revenue for the Federal Government. Some people will say that's fine,
if you are really solving problems, if you are truly solving problems,
then it may be appropriate for us to do that.
As you well know, the largest problem that we have in our Nation from
a fiscal standpoint is the issue of entitlement spending, automatic
spending that occurs in our Federal Government programs, primarily
three programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
[[Page H6815]]
This chart here outlines the percentage of the Federal budget that
goes for those programs. These are the programs that are on automatic
pilot. They just kind of continued to increase because of the
demographics of our society, aging population. The monies for these
programs continue to increase year after year unless there is
particular reform.
So, in 1995, those three programs that are in this yellow portion of
this pie chart here were about 48.7 percent of the Federal budget. In
2005, they measured 53 percent. They are a little over 54 percent now.
In 2017, they will be 62.2 percent with no changes, and within another,
oh, 10 to 15 years beyond that, they will consume the entire Federal
budget, if the budget remains at its current level, which is its
historic rate.
Now, many of my constituents might say if you are going to increase
taxes like the majority party has done by adopting the largest tax
increase in the history of our Nation, nearly a $400 billion tax
increase, if you are going to do that, that might be okay if you are
going to solve real problems, if you are going to solve real problems.
But the fact of the matter is that the budget didn't solve any of the
problems, none, zero.
When we look at this graph, this graph is evidence of the absolute
emptiness of the promise that the majority party had to reform
entitlement spending, to reform automatic spending, mandatory spending.
In our budget, in 1997, we had 125, $130 billion in appropriate reform
and reductions. The Deficit Reduction Act, in 2005, had about $43
billion in appropriate reductions.
The budget just adopted for the coming years, by the new majority
party, had zero, zero, no money at all for appropriate fiscal reform,
responsible reform in the area of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
Those programs are social compacts with the American people, but they
are programs that left on their current course will not be able to
survive. They will not be able to survive. So every day that we wait,
the problems get greater, the solution gets more elusive for each of
those programs. So it is imperative, it is imperative that we move
forward.
I would challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle to join
together with those of us who are interested in true fiscal
responsibility and true entitlement reform, and let's get it done.
Let's get it done on behalf of the American people, because, frankly,
that's what they sent us here to Washington to do, to solve big
problems.
This graph demonstrates that we are not solving big problems here. As
I say, if you were going to increase significantly the amount of taxes
that the American people are paying, then many of them may say, I think
there is a better way to do it, as I mentioned. Because I think tax
reductions increase revenue to a greater degree to the Federal
Government.
But many people across this Nation might say, well, I am all right
paying a little more taxes if we are solving real problems, but not if
we're on a spending spree that appears to be what is occurring with
this new majority. This graph demonstrates the commitment to
entitlement reform, which apparently in this new majority is zero. So I
urge my colleagues to rethink the process and the policies that they
put in place that will result in no significant entitlement reform.
As they are looking, once again, at their budget and at their
policies, I would urge them also to look back into history. The next
graph demonstrates clearly what kind of economic policy does work. This
graph could be a number of things that show, that demonstrate negative
growth or negative activity in the economy to positive activity in the
economy over the years of this decade.
This graph, as a matter of fact, is the graph about job creation. How
many new jobs have been created in our Nation since the beginning of
2001? As you can see, what we have here for month after month after
month after month, between 2001 and 2003, virtually negative job growth
during that period of time, no new jobs, in fact, losing jobs in the
economy. For every single quarter, with the exception of four during
that 4-year period.
Something happened, miraculously, in the beginning of 2003, the early
months of 2003, in this vertical line here that marks the beginning of
moving toward quarter after quarter after quarter after quarter of
increased job growth, over 7 million new jobs since the summer of 2003.
What happened at that time is, as you know, this is when the final
appropriate tax reductions were adopted by the Republican majority with
this administration and this Congress. What that has resulted in is
remarkable increase in job growth across our Nation. Virtually every
single State, virtually every single State has seen increase in job
growth over that period of time, average job gain of 168,000 new jobs
per month on average.
So one would think that if you were charged with coming up with
economic policy for our Nation that you would look back and say, well,
this looks to be a pretty good program here that has resulted in
significant job growth.
As I said before, this could be economic development, you could see a
significant decrease in unemployment. All sorts of things could go on
these axis, and you would see positive activity during this same period
of time.
So if you were charged with coming up with economic policy for our
Nation, one would think that you would look at this and say what
happened, what happened at that point that made the resulting number of
quarters to the current time, made it so productive? How did we become
so productive as a Nation compared to where we were earlier in this
decade?
Well, as I said, what happened during that time was appropriate tax
reductions, making it so that individuals paid less of their hard-
earned taxpayer money, that they are allowed to keep more of their
money so that they decide when they spend, or they save or they invest.
It's those kinds of policies that have resulted in can significant
economic growth and economic activity.
I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as they
are working through their process, as they are trying to figure out how
to make certain that we stay a global, world competitive economic
engine, that what they ought to do is look into history. Just a few
short years ago there was a policy that was adopted by this Congress
that resulted in remarkable, remarkable economic activity. So that we
have the most economically productive Nation in the world, the
industrialized world.
We continue to perform month after month after month. One of the main
reasons for that is, indeed, the decrease, the appropriate reductions
in taxes all across the Nation so that anybody who has paid taxes pays
fewer taxes, less taxes today from a percentage standpoint than they
did prior to that early point in 2003.
That's what results in increasing economic activity. It's not
something that is unique to these tax reductions in 2003. In fact,
that's what we saw when President Reagan decreased taxes in the 1980s,
decreased taxes for the American people. Many folks said, oh, you can't
do that, you won't be able to fund the programs in the Federal
Government.
But what happened is that, as happened here, it increased revenue to
the Federal Government because you decreased taxes because you cut
taxes and because you allow the American people to keep more of their
hard-earned money.
{time} 2015
And that's what results in increasing economic activity. And it
hasn't only been on the Republican side of the aisle. Democrats,
indeed, have shown this same kind of discipline in the past. When
President Kennedy, in the early 1960s, in fact, cut taxes, decreased
taxes, appropriate tax reductions for the American people, because he
knew that if you decrease taxes to the American people, what happens is
that they will determine for themselves responsibly when to save or to
spend or invest and, in fact, that increases economic activity for our
Nation.
It points out, Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental differences that I
talked about between a conservative Republican philosophy and a liberal
Democrat philosophy, and that is that we believe that the American
people know best how to spend their money, not Washington. There are
very few times when Washington knows better how to spend someone's
money than themselves. And it just makes common
[[Page H6816]]
sense, because only an individual, only people know their priorities.
Now, there are certain things that we have to spend common money on,
without a doubt, and we talked about one of those that we dealt with
earlier today. But there's a responsible way to do it, and that
responsible way to do it, Mr. Speaker, is to identify, clearly identify
those programs that ought to be absolute priorities.
And I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is so many fewer programs
than this Federal Government is currently undertaking. But the Democrat
liberal majority has a mentality that tends to come from San Francisco,
I guess, which means that you just ought to spend just as much as you
can get. You just ought to spend as much as you can get.
And so I'm pleased to join with my colleagues and point out that the
economic policies that have been successful in the past and will
continue to be successful if they're adopted, are those policies that
will result in more hard-earned taxpayer money being able to be kept by
hard-earned American taxpayers.
I just want to highlight once more a chart that demonstrates exactly
that. And that is that when you reduce taxes to the American people,
when you reduce, appropriately, taxes so that the American people can
keep more of their hard-earned money, which is what occurred here in
the early part of 2003, tax revenues were going down and down and down,
3 straight years of decreases between 2000 and 2003, tax reductions
occurred with the Tax Relief Act being passed, and then the revenues
increased significantly so that greater revenues than ever seen by the
Federal Government because of tax reductions. And that's the kind of
responsible economic policy that we believe, that I believe, ought to
be put in place and kept in place, so that you decrease the tax burden
on the American people, you allow them to determine when they save or
they spend or they invest their own money. And then what happens is
that the economy flourishes because there's more money available to
drive the economy, more jobs created, more economic activity, more
independence, and more liberty, more liberty and more freedom, because
when people are able to keep their own money, they're freer, they're
freer to make decisions about how they indeed spend or save or invest
their own money.
So we're talking some economic policy tonight, Mr. Speaker, and
hopefully, we'll be able to encourage our friends on the other side of
the aisle to adopt some of these commonsense reforms.
I'm pleased to be joined by my good friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert)
who's going to talk a little bit also about some economic activity
that's been going on here in Washington, and I'm pleased to yield to my
friend.
Mr. GOHMERT. And I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia yielding,
and appreciate the work he's been doing and pointing out some real
economic truths. Some of these things are just so basic. As we've
talked about before, you mentioned before, Ronald Reagan said we don't
have a taxing problem, we've got a spending problem. And he was so
right.
But over the last 2\1/2\ years, Mr. Speaker, that my friend from
Georgia and I have been here together, we've seen lots of indications,
lots of signs out in front of offices talking about the national debt,
and your share is so much. And I just think those are so good and so
helpful.
As we see here, Blue Dog Coalition, today the U.S. national debt is
$8,809,000,000, and your share is $29,000. I mean, that's just
staggering. And frankly, you know, I've begun to think I want one of
those signs, because we know who's in control. And there are those of
us for the last 2\1/2\ years, or the last 2 years that we've actually
been here, that have been trying to push this body into having more
economic responsibility. And we did see, last year, great strides made
in the first time that discretionary spending wasn't just held even, it
actually was cut. So we were making some real progress.
We saw the Federal revenues come streaming up, as the gentleman from
Georgia points out, that real progress is being made. And so I just
want to applaud what has been done because really it's consistent with
the efforts that so many of us have made, like earmark reform. We were
trying to get earmark reform. And it only took a few dozen conservative
Republicans to band together and not vote for key legislation unless we
got some earmark reform.
{time} 2030
And that is when we finally got some earmark reform. Of course, you
wouldn't know it to listen to me. They never talked about what we got
accomplished, but being able to object, make a point of order on
earmark reform. But I think this is a good idea to keep reminding
everybody of how high the debt is, how much everybody's responsibility
is. And, frankly, I want one of these signs. I may have to change the
name to the ``Blue Hound Dog Coalition'' or something, but I would like
to see everybody encouraging this Congress to move as we were able to
push the Congress in doing in the last year or so, and hopefully there
are people on the other side of the aisle that will be able to push the
Democratic majority away from this just uncontrolled spending. Not only
is the President's request up in most every area, but the proposals for
appropriations from the Democratic majority just skyrocket above that
in so many areas.
So I don't know what the gentleman from Georgia intends to do. But I
tell you, I like reminding the majority it is time to do something. We
made some real progress the last 2 years, and I am hoping that folks
are not going to let that die. Even though there is a major effort to
try to get that killed, I think we should keep pushing, keep pushing. I
just encourage all Republicans get a sign outside your door. Let's
remind folks, not just the 36 that pushed for earmark reform. Let's get
everybody out there reminding the majority.
I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia's yielding, and I would just
encourage you in all your efforts, let's get this done.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
comments, and I appreciate his bringing that sign because it highlights
the Orwellian nature of this majority. You say you have got folks who
are members of the Blue Dog coalition and what they say is that they
are opposed to increasing that number. But, Mr. Speaker, what happened
earlier this year is that the 8 trillion plus dollars of debt that have
increased over multiple administrations have been increased to over $9
trillion now. The debt ceiling was increased by the Democrat majority,
along with the Blue Dogs, to over $9 trillion. By this majority. By
this majority, Mr. Speaker. Something they said they would never do.
But, in fact, that is exactly what they did do. And in so doing, they
adopted the second largest debt increase in our history.
So it is important for the American people to be listening and
watching. It is important for them to appreciate what happens when you
decrease taxes, that Federal revenues increase. It is important for
them to appreciate, as this chart demonstrates, what track we are on
for spending with this new majority.
This green line here, Mr. Speaker, that is moving along demonstrates
the significant increase in spending. And much of that is driven by the
entitlements that we talked about earlier, the mandatory spending,
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and demands reform. Demands
reform. But that is not what has been enacted by this majority. The
problem is that this majority is adopting policies in their current
appropriations bills that will not decrease that line; it will
increase. It will further increase that slope. And that is not the kind
of leadership that America needs or deserves or desires or, Mr.
Speaker, I believe, not the kind of leadership that they voted for in
November.
One of the things that they did do in November was send us a good new
Member on our side of the aisle, Mr. Lamborn, and I am pleased to see
him join us this evening and I look forward to his comments on economic
policy.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Georgia yield for
purposes of a colloquy?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would be happy to yield to you.
Mr. LAMBORN. To the gentleman from Georgia, you have been in Congress
for about 3 years now, I believe, if I am not mistaken, and you came
from the Georgia legislature. Like you, I
[[Page H6817]]
came from the Colorado legislature. And one thing that the great State
of Georgia and the great State of Colorado share, as do all 48 other
States, is that they have a balanced budget amendment. It is written
into the State Constitution of both Georgia and Colorado that every
year we have to balance the budget.
Now, unfortunately, I think the biggest glaring problem with our
national budget is we don't have such a balanced budget requirement
every year, and it is so easy to go into debt. If we had strong
willpower, we could hold the line, and that is what we are going to
talk about here, and I have some questions for you. But in the absence
of that strong fiscal strength of character, moral fiber, whatever you
want to call it, it is so easy to want to please everybody, spend for
the projects, not prioritize, and we run up massive deficits. And I
know that in the past deficits have been run up under all kinds of
administrations of both parties.
But to the gentleman from Georgia, what would be the difference here
if we had some kind of balanced budget amendment? I mean until we have
that and if it takes a constitutional amendment, which I would favor
but that is going to take two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-
quarters, or 38 of the 50 States, to ratify that, and until that day
comes, we just have to have the strength of will and the commitment to
the American people and the taxpayer that we will balance the budget.
Could you respond to that?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, Mr.
Speaker. And I am so pleased that he brought that up because oftentimes
when we have these discussions, you hear people never provide any
solutions, and you have put a solution on the table that I think is
very important.
As you mentioned, I have been here just 3 years. This is my third
year in Congress. And I came from the State level, where you have to
balance the budget, and the reason you have to balance the budget is
because you can't print money. States can't print money and Washington
can, and that may be the crux of the problem right there. But I
recognized early on that all of the inertia, and we see it during this
appropriations season, all of the inertia here in Washington is to
spend money, to spend more money. There are very few institutional, if
any institutional, parameters in place that force you to hold the line
on spending, which is why a balanced budget amendment is so incredibly
important. And it is one of the reasons that many of us have supported
a taxpayer bill of rights at the Federal level. We certainly did at the
State level. I know I did. I suspect you did as well at the State
level.
But we believe and we have introduced legislation for a Federal
taxpayer bill of rights because we believe taxpayers have a right to
know that the Federal Government doesn't grow beyond their means; that
they have a right to receive back every single dollar that they put
into their retirement program, into the Social Security program. We
believe that taxpayers have a right to a balanced budget amendment
without raising taxes, which is one of the issues that you stated. And
it is so important, and the reason it is important is because of the
programs and the policies and the traditions, if you will, of
Washington. And the American people understand this clearly. The
traditions are to continue programs that are already in place and then
add some more on. It is just the natural tendency, and that is simply
not what the American people want or desire, I believe.
I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And it is probably a concern to you, as it is
to me, that the current appropriations bills, about 12 of them, that
are going through the House have an excess of $23 billion over what the
President has requested. And if it was me in the President's place, I
might have even had that lower. But let's go with that as a base amount
to start with. We are going $23 billion over that. And he has said
that, with the exception of the military construction bill, he is ready
to veto bills that go over his spending requests. So let's say eight or
nine of those get vetoed. Doesn't that mean we are going to have to
come back? You have been through this process a full cycle, and I have
not. Doesn't that mean we are going to have to come back later this
summer, go through these bills all over again, and start from scratch?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend for his comment.
I am hopeful that the President will follow through on his admonition
to Congress to toe the line on spending, and I am hopeful that he will
indeed veto a bill that gets to his desk that has an increase in
spending.
Remember, the amount that the administration requested is the amount
that the departments believe is the appropriate level of spending to
carry out the needs of the American people.
Now, it is perfectly appropriate I believe for Congress to
reprioritize within that basket, to say we think we ought to be
spending, as a Nation, more here as opposed to here. I am one of those
who believe we ought to be spending less as a Nation; so I would hope
we would reprioritize and say this program is a priority of the Federal
Government and, in fact, this one is best done elsewhere, maybe even
the private sector and consequently doesn't need to be funded.
But what will happen, I trust, is that the President will be good to
his word and veto legislation that spends more than the departments
asked for and then it comes back to the Congress in order to rewrite a
bill that will provide and allow for the President to sign. And as I
say, I am hopeful that that kind of fiscally responsible activity
occurs as we move through this process.
And I am pleased to yield again to my friend.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for that answer.
And as a follow-up to that, I would have to say that in the absence
of a balanced budget amendment, at least we have the possibility of
sticking to the numbers that the President has given us. Those numbers
are still in excess of the rate of inflation. He is asking some
departments for a 6 or 8, 9 percent increase as opposed to 2 or 3
percent, which would be the inflationary rate. So his numbers are very
generous just right there. But when our colleagues across the aisle are
going $23 billion on top of that, I just see a chance for a little bit
of fiscal restraint if they would back off $23 billion and say let's
stick within what the President has recommended. There are still many
things that can be done that are worthy projects within that amount.
And I just see that we are missing a golden opportunity here, and I
just think that until we have a balanced budget amendment, we have to
do it by our own sense of fiscal discipline.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments.
And I will point out that our side of the aisle, when we had
responsibility for these budgets over the past at least 2 years that I
have been here, we kept the rate of increase in the discretionary
programs to less than the rate of inflation. And that was something
that I and many others here thought was important.
I think it is important to put on the table solutions because the
American people want solutions. They want us to work together in a
positive way and provide solutions. And the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is
indeed a program of solutions, making certain that we don't grow beyond
our means, that the Federal Government budget doesn't grow faster than
the rate of inflation and the increase in population. Perfectly
appropriate. Making certain that the Social Security Trust Fund money
is spent on Social Security.
We heard a lot about that from our friends before the election, that
that is exactly what they would do. In fact, they have had an
opportunity to put that in place and have not done so.
A balanced budget amendment without raising taxes, it is clearly
possible from historical precedent and from economic policy that has
been written before that it is easily done to balance this budget
without raising taxes. You will hear our friends on the other side say,
no, you have got to raise taxes in order to balance the budget.
I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And I have another question from the
gentleman from Georgia.
You were here over the last 2 years before January, when I was sworn
in and I came on, although I am new since then. Isn't it true that we
had a rule that the Republicans initiated that said it took 60 percent
to raise taxes,
[[Page H6818]]
not in statute but in rules, and that that was one of the first things
that went out the window when we turned control over to the Democrats?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend for asking it because it is
one of the things that resulted in a 12-year history in this Congress
of no increase in taxes. And one of the reasons for that was we
required in our rules a super majority to raise taxes. And you are
absolutely correct. On that first day there were a lot of rules that
changed that determined how the House works. One of the rules that was
changed said, no, you don't need a super majority; all you need is a
simple majority, which, as you know and as the American people know,
means that the majority party can do anything they want in terms of
taxes, which was how they were able to pass a budget that includes the
largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, nearly $400 billion
in the future.
So I appreciate my good friend's comments and would yield to him if
he has another question or comment.
Mr. LAMBORN. Yes. And then I will turn it back over to you.
But you remember the year 2001 in the Georgia legislature. I remember
that very well in Colorado. When 9/11 happened, the tragedy involved
with that, and then on top of that the subsequent horrendous economic
problems that our country had, and each State suffered losses of
revenues. We had to look at cutting programs or doing with less. But at
the same time, the American public and families had to do with less
also.
{time} 2045
But then when times were better, we had more, and we can spend more,
if necessary.
So I just think that it's unfortunate that we don't have such a
balanced budget amendment. But it's good that we had rules, at least up
until January, where we took a supermajority before we had a tax
increase, and even now we have an opportunity, if we will all only
seize upon it, to say, okay, we'll stick with the President's numbers.
I think we can do even better than that in terms of saving money for
the taxpayers. But let's say we stick with the President's numbers,
that would still be a $23 billion savings over what our friends across
the aisle are proposing in these various appropriations bills. And that
we would, by going to the President's numbers, we would still be over
the rate of inflation in most of the different agencies.
So, I just think it's a tragedy that we're not seizing upon this
opportunity. I just expected better when I got sworn into Congress
because I had heard talk during the campaign that if the majority party
would take power, that they would be more fiscally responsible in
different ways. And unfortunately, I haven't seen that fully carried
out, and I've been very disappointed.
At this point, I'm going to yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend from Colorado for coming down
this evening and sharing his comments and his perspective. It's similar
to mine. And the disappointment is shared as well because the American
people did expect more. And I think that the numbers that we've seen,
Mr. Speaker, and the polls that are out now that demonstrate the
impression of the American people of Congress is at its lowest point in
decades, that that's reflective of the disappointment that they have in
this new majority. So I appreciate your comments.
I do just want to end, Mr. Speaker, by highlighting once again what
we believe the solutions are. And there are solutions, and they're
positive solutions. And they are solutions that we can embrace
together, Republicans and Democrats, who truly desire to be fiscally
responsible. And they are incorporated in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights
at the Federal level. Again, it means that the Federal Government ought
not grow faster than the rate of inflation and the increase in
population; that every single dollar that goes into the Social Security
trust fund ought to be spent on Social Security; that that money ought
to be preserved for individuals who send that money to the Federal
Government; that a balanced budget occurs without raising taxes. It's
very doable. We have demonstrated it time and time again, that you
increase revenue to the Federal Government when you decrease taxes. So,
a balanced budget amendment without raising taxes.
And fundamental and fair tax reform. Our tax system is woefully
flawed, and it is a system that is crying out for reform, crying out
for repair. It's unfair for people all across the spectrum, and
demands, indeed demands, fundamental reform.
And finally, a supermajority required for any tax increase, as my
friend from Colorado highlighted. We had no tax increase over the 12
years when my party was in charge. And one of the reasons for that was
that it required a supermajority to pass a tax increase. And that just
makes common sense. If you are going to take more of the hard-earned
American taxpayer money, then you ought to do it with significant
majorities. Thomas Jefferson, I believe, said that ``You ought not make
major changes with minor majorities.'' It's something that I think this
majority ought to adhere to.
Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying that we live in a wonderful
and glorious Nation, a Nation that allows us to be elected and to come
and represent the finest people on the face of the Earth. I challenge
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to endeavor to do that in a
way that's responsible, that respects the hard work that they do day in
and day out, that respects the importance in the correlation between
liberty and freedom, and allowing the American people to keep more of
their money. When they're able to keep more money, they're more free,
they have greater independence and greater liberty. And by so doing, we
adhere to fundamental principles that are uniquely American.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________