[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16550-16556]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 16551]]

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.
  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

[[Page 16552]]

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 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

[[Page 16553]]

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.
  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

[[Page 16554]]

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 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

[[Page 16555]]

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 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

[[Page 16556]]

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, 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.

                          ____________________