[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24582-24588]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          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. Mr. Speaker, what a great opportunity it is to 
come back to the floor of the House as the designee of the minority 
leader, the Republican leader, and bring some issues hopefully into a 
little greater perspective.
  We come here often and try to shed a little light as a group that we 
call the Official Truth Squad. The Official Truth Squad is a group that 
got started a little over 2 years ago, because, Mr. Speaker, as you 
well know, when folks tend to speak on the floor of the House, 
sometimes they exaggerate a little bit. I know that is hard to believe, 
but in fact that is the case. In fact, what we just heard, I would 
suggest, Mr. Speaker, is a bit of an exaggeration, and maybe a 
distortion of the facts.
  What we would like to do tonight is to talk about a number of issues, 
primarily monetary issues, taxing and spending and those kinds of 
things. But before we get started, we want to bring a couple of issues 
together that have as their common core and their common theme truth.
  Our desire is to try to bring into perspective some of those areas 
that oftentimes don't have the light of day given to them, if you will, 
Mr. Speaker. We have a favorite phrase or quote that we use in the 
Official Truth Squad, and it comes from a gentleman who was revered in 
this Capitol, and truly across this Nation, a former Senator from New 
York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He is quoted, and a number of folks have 
said something like this, but he has my favorite quote that 
crystallizes this issue, and that is that everyone is entitled to their 
opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Everyone is 
entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own 
facts.
  Before I begin and talk about some of the fiscal matters, the 
monetary matters, that we have confronting us in this Nation and that 
this Congress has already dealt with in ways that I think would benefit 
from a little light, and certainly issues that we will be dealing with 
further as we go on into this fall and winter, I want to talk about 2 
very specific issues that have come to this Congress within the last 
week.
  The first is something that the American people are well aware of, 
and that is that General Petraeus, who was the commanding officer of 
the coalition forces in Iraq, came last week after much fanfare in the 
media to present to Congress his perspective on what was going on in 
Iraq, and only in Iraq. Leading up to that, we had a remarkable display 
by Members of the other side of the aisle, the majority party, that did 
their best, their dead level best, to discredit this incredible hero 
and this incredible patriot and this incredible man of service to this 
Nation.
  All the while you hear them say over and over and over, ``we support 
the troops.'' ``We don't like the war, but we support the troops.'' 
Well, nobody likes the war. But some people back up their statement 
that they indeed support the troops with action, and the action that 
occurred leading up to last week's presentation before a joint 
committee in the House and a committee in the Senate by General 
Petraeus, a true hero and a true patriot, the action that led up to 
that by Members of the majority party, the Democrat majority party, I 
found to be disconcerting. When I was home last week for our extended 
recess, folks at home found it to be disconcerting.
  But then what we heard after a remarkable ad was taken out by a left-
wing advocacy group that questioned the patriotism and that questioned 
the honor and that questioned the veracity of what General Petraeus was 
going to present to the committee, what we heard from the other side 
after that was remarkable silence, a remarkable silence.
  So when you hear Members on the other side of the aisle, as we just 
did within the last 15 minutes, say, Mr. Speaker, I support the troops, 
but I don't support the mission, well, it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that 
you can't do that and be true to our men and women on the ground. You 
can't do that. Because what we heard after the ad that was put in The 
New York Times, at a discount rate, I might add, the ad that was put in 
The New York Times, when it questioned the honesty of one of our 
bravest heroes, military heroes, what we heard from the other side was 
virtually nothing, which put it all into perspective.
  That is the truth that Senator Moynihan was talking about. You can 
have your opinion, but you can't have your own facts. And the fact of 
the matter is in that instance, when there was an attack on one of our 
leaders in the military, one of our heroes, when there was an attack, 
where were the Americans in the majority party, who represent the 
majority party? Where were they?
  I know where their constituents were, because I represent many of 
them, and they were as disgusted as I with the actions of MoveOn.org. 
They were as disgusted as I with the remarkable, remarkable betrayal of 
the public trust that anybody in the public arena has. And it was 
distressing. I found it distressing and saddening that in fact we heard 
virtually nothing from folks on the other side of the aisle.
  So that is a bit of truth that the American people are paying 
attention to. When I go home, that is what I hear. I hear folks ask me 
all the time, why is it that our Congress, the majority party now in 
our Congress, cannot stand up proudly and say that they match their 
words with action when it comes to our brave men and women in the 
military? So that is a bit of truth that I wanted to highlight, to 
bring a little light to in this House of Representatives.
  The other is an issue that again doesn't have anything to do with 
that, except we are trying to shed some light of truth on it. It 
happened just a couple of hours ago, Mr. Speaker, on the floor of this 
House.
  The majority party has bent over backwards in their efforts to try to 
make certain that individuals who are in this Nation illegally are able 
to access certain benefit that are paid for with hard-earned taxpayer 
money. Now, I don't know why that is. I can't answer the question I get 
at home, why on Earth would they do those sorts of things? I can't 
answer that. But they bend over backwards to make certain that 
individuals who have come into this Nation illegally are able to get 
access to housing, get access to all sorts of things that in fact my 
constituents, your constituents, I suspect, Mr. Speaker, don't believe 
is appropriate.
  They believe that we ought to make certain that our borders are 
secure and that individuals come into this Nation correctly, legally. I 
don't know of anybody that opposes legal immigration. What many of us, 
especially on the minority side, the Republican side, oppose is illegal 
immigration and the consequences of attempting to take care of or 
provide services for those folks that are here illegally. The problem 
is, those services, all of the services that we address here, are paid 
for by hard-earned American taxpayer money.
  So what we had on the floor of the House here today was a bill that 
should have gotten broad support, the reauthorization of the Federal 
Housing Act. It is a bill that in its original intent was supposed to 
try to provide assistance for people who were kind of at the margins. 
They weren't able to make certain that they were able to afford some 
kind of housing, and this bill was an attempt to try to provide in a 
very generous and positive way some assistance to those that needed it.
  Over time, that mission has become a bit distorted. In this instance 
today, it has not only become distorted; it has become abused, abused 
in a way that, again, my constituents at home, they just shake their 
head when they hear these kinds of stories.

[[Page 24583]]

  What happened is what the bill included, at the direction of the 
chairman of the committee and of the Democrat majority. What it 
included was up to a $5 billion slush fund.
  Mr. Speaker, remember, that is $5 billion of hard-earned American 
taxpayer money, $5 billion to go into what is euphemistically called an 
Affordable Housing Fund. But in fact what that money can be used for is 
virtually anything that the majority party believes is appropriate in 
terms of giving money to organizations that have something to do with 
housing.
  Now, how is that something defined? Well, it isn't, which means that 
that money can be used for an organization that simply advertises that 
if you are having difficulty with housing, then we would like to assist 
you and move you and get you to talk to the people who truly have the 
answers.

                              {time}  1730

  That may be 1 percent of their mission, and the other 99 percent of 
their mission is advocacy for left-leaning organizations all across 
this Nation. And advocacy for individuals on the other side of the 
aisle to get elected, and advocacy in ways that the vast majority of 
the American people would say we ought not be doing that. We ought not 
be spending hard-earned American taxpayer money that way. Yet this is a 
$5 billion slush fund for individuals to be able to use it kind of as 
their own little pet project.
  If that weren't bad enough, on our side of the aisle we get one 
opportunity to truly affect and change the course or the description, 
the content of a bill. It is called a motion to recommit, as you know, 
Mr. Speaker. In that motion to recommit that we offered today, it was 
very simple. It said, if you are going to allow individuals to have 
access to that $5 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money, you ought to 
make certain that the people receiving that money are either U.S. 
citizens or here legally. Kind of a simple, commonsense amendment.
  What we heard from the other side was oh, no, you can't do that. That 
would limit the ability of us to do, to accomplish our mission. That 
would make it so we are not able to do the kinds of things that we want 
to do.
  Remember, the kinds of things that they want to do is to support 
organizations that are not consistent with mainstream America. So we 
offered that amendment that would have provided that you had to be 
legal in this Nation, that you had appropriate documentation of your 
legality. You had to be a U.S. citizen or here legally. The other side 
strenuously objected and defeated it. So 216 or 217 Members of the 
Democrat Party said no, we don't believe that you ought to be here 
legally and get those kinds of moneys. We believe those moneys ought to 
be able to go to those folks here illegally.
  Mr. Speaker, when I go home and try to explain that to my 
constituents, there is no way I can do that. They stand in front of me 
just dumbfounded that the majority party that we have right now is 
intent on providing taxpayer benefits, taxpayer-funded benefits, to 
individuals here illegally. That is a bit of a truth that I am trying 
to weave through and make certain that Members of this body, Mr. 
Speaker, understand and appreciate that some of these votes actually do 
matter. Some of these votes matter. That vote today mattered.
  I am attempting to shed some light on issues that in fact matter, and 
the issue of the ad that denigrated and criticized and brought into 
question the honesty and truthfulness of one of our military heroes 
about which we heard nothing, virtually nothing from the other side, 
that is truth. That's truth. And the American people are watching. The 
American people are watching.
  I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, when I go home I often get some questions 
from folks who are concerned about what is going on here in Washington. 
I was reminded by a friend here on the floor of the House today that it 
is striking that so often what seems to matter at home doesn't matter 
here, and what matters here doesn't matter at home. So we get the kind 
of remarkable back-and-forth that goes on here on the floor of the 
House that oftentimes is not full of the kind of substance that the 
American people are concerned about, and the issues about which they 
are concerned we often get very little attention paid to those things 
here in Washington.
  We are going to talk about one of those that I hear about all the 
time from my constituents back home. We are going to talk about the 
issue of taxes and the issue of spending and the issue of entitlements. 
``Entitlements'' is a word I am not very fond of because it is not an 
appropriate description. Entitlements have come to en capture the 
Social Security program, Medicare program and Medicaid program. They 
are called entitlements, because in order to receive the benefits from 
those three programs, and other entitlements, there are other 
entitlements, all you have to do is meet certain parameters. So if you 
are a certain age, for example, you are eligible for Medicare, 
regardless of anything else. If you are below a certain income and you 
have a certain family situation, then you are eligible for Medicaid. 
Once you reach a certain age, you are eligible for Social Security. The 
proceeds or the benefits that are in those programs are automatic. So I 
prefer to call them automatic spending as opposed to entitlements. And 
instead of mandatory spending, I like to call them automatic spending 
because the spending is on autopilot. It just goes and goes.
  Regardless of what happens in this Chamber and in the Senate, the 
spending continues and continues and continues. The inertia here in 
Washington about these programs is to do nothing. It is to do 
absolutely nothing because they are automatic. They are entitlements. 
Why would we want to do anything. We would want to do something because 
of the changing demographics of our society. We are on a collision 
course with a fiscal disaster. A collision course with a fiscal 
disaster. That is not my opinion, that is a fact, to quote Senator 
Moynihan.
  If you go to other folks who are much more knowledgeable about this 
situation, they will tell you the same thing. The chairman of the 
Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke said in February 2007, ``Without 
early and meaningful action to address the rapid growth of entitlement, 
the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened with future generations 
bearing much of the cost.'' That is the Federal Reserve chairman saying 
if something isn't done, the economy could be seriously weakened. What 
that means is fewer jobs, decreasing income, higher taxes, decreasing 
opportunity, a shadow coming across the dreams of the American people. 
That's what that means.
  The comptroller general, David Walker, who has been working as hard 
as he can for literally years to get the American people and this 
Congress to wake up to this impending crisis, David Walker said in 
March of this year, ``The rising cost of government entitlements are `a 
fiscal cancer' that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country 
and could `bankrupt America.'''
  Mr. Speaker, that's not Representative Price talking. That's not 
somebody who is talking willy-nilly about the sky falling for no reason 
at all. That is the comptroller general of the United States of America 
who looks at the numbers and looks into the projections of spending in 
these entitlement programs and says that there are catastrophic 
consequences for our country if nothing is done.
  I am fond of saying that a picture is worth a thousand words, and 
graphs are oftentimes worth more than that. This graph demonstrates 
clearly the course we are on. These are pie charts that identify the 
amount of the portion, the percentage of the Federal budget, that goes 
to mandatory or automatic spending, the entitlement programs, Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security.
  In 1995, these programs, the entitlement programs, automatic spending 
programs, comprised about 48.7 percent of the Federal budget. And the 
prediction then in 2005 was that they would comprise about 54 percent 
of the Federal budget. That was the prediction back in 1995. And what 
happened? Well, it was right on track. Right on track. 53.4 percent of 
the Federal budget went to automatic spending in the area of 
entitlements.

[[Page 24584]]

  Now what's the prediction for 2017? It is 62.2 percent. This yellow 
portion of the pie continues to get larger and larger and larger. 
That's the spending in the automatic spending area, the entitlement 
area: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That is a course, Mr. 
Speaker, that we as a Nation are not able to sustain. It is crying out 
for reform. It is crying out for improvement and programs that will be 
more responsive to the individuals receiving it. It is crying out to 
make certain that as the baby boomers of our Nation retire, as they 
age, and as we have individuals who are at the lower end of the 
economic spectrum, it is crying out for programs that are more 
responsive to them, that answer their concerns, that listen to them. 
These programs will not be able to do that because they will not be 
able to be funded. And to sit here in 2007 and act as a Congress and 
not address these issues is irresponsible. It is irresponsible.
  This chart, Mr. Speaker, talks about this looming entitlement or 
automatic spending crisis. In 2007, Federal spending as a percentage of 
GDP, that's the gross domestic product, is about 20 percent. That means 
about 20 percent, about two dimes out of every dollar that every 
American earns, goes towards taxes in order to cover the programs that 
the Federal Government provides. And the bulk of this, remember, the 
bulk of this yellow bar here is entitlement spending: Medicare, 
Medicaid, Social Security.
  If we remain on our current course, if we do nothing at all, and 
remember, we have done nothing. If we continue to do nothing, what 
happens is that in relatively short order, 2020, we go to 23, 24 
percent. In 2030 we go over 30 percent. In 2040, we go to 40 percent. 
In 2050, we exceed 50 percent of the gross domestic product.
  It's important to remember that, and I have another chart which I 
don't have with me, but it is important to remember that the average 
level of Federal budget, taxation to the American people is 18 to 20 
percent and has been for decades. It is also important to note that 
amount of spending, that amount of taxation, that amount of Federal 
spending, a Nation spending at about 20 percent, is about the maximum 
that any Nation can sustain for any period of time and remain 
financially viable. Once you get up into these areas here, Mr. Speaker, 
you can't sustain that. The economy won't sustain it. People won't have 
jobs. You begin to lose companies and jobs. You begin to lose the 
infrastructure that makes it so that individuals can go to work and 
send their money to Uncle Sam.
  There is a balance, and that's what Federal Reserve Chairman Ben 
Bernanke knows. That is what Comptroller General David Walker knows, 
and that is why they are sounding these alarms.
  So you would think that this Congress that is charged with making 
certain that our financial stake, that our financial future, is 
positive and optimistic and that my son, our son and children all 
across this Nation can grow up and be able to have the wonderful 
opportunities that so many of us have had. You would think that this 
majority would want to continue or want to make reforms so that those 
kinds of dreams and visions and entrepreneurship and excitement about 
America's future would continue. You would think that the current 
leadership would listen to what they hear if they take that shell and 
they put it up to their ear or they read the tea leaves or they listen 
to the people that truly know like David Bernanke and like David 
Walker. You would think that they would reform these programs or put a 
proposal on the table to reform these programs.

                              {time}  1745

  You would think, Mr. Speaker, that there would be no expansion of 
entitlements, there would be no more additions to the automatic 
spending that is going on here in Washington. Well, Mr. Speaker, as you 
know, that is not the case.
  We have had a number of bills that have come through the floor of 
this House that have in fact expanded entitlements. The most recent one 
was terribly discomforting to me. It was the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program.
  Before I came to Congress, Mr. Speaker, I was a physician. I spent 
over 20 years, 25 years taking care of people, trying to get them well, 
trying to heal them, trying to make certain that in spite of all the 
remarkable rules and regulations that are put on the backs of every 
single physician across this here Nation, that we could actually take 
care of patients.
  One of the things that became much more onerous than it ought to be 
is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which actually 
provided greater rules to how to care for individuals than otherwise. 
It also ultimately didn't fit the original definition.
  The State Children's Health Insurance Program began in 1997. Its 
mission was to make certain that those individuals, those children in 
families where their family made too much money to qualify for Medicaid 
but they didn't make enough money to be able to readily afford health 
insurance were given some help; that those families were able to 
provide some type of health insurance that was truly quality for their 
children.
  It is a good mission. It is a bipartisan program, a program that 
passed through this House in Congress in 1997 in a bipartisan manner 
because it had an appropriate ideal; it was an appropriate compromise 
between some Federal program, a State program, and a lot of private 
input. That program was to run for 10 years. So it is about to expire.
  So what has happened in this House is that the Democrat majority 
decided that they weren't interested in working in a bipartisan way, 
contrary to so much of what they talk about. They weren't interested in 
working in a bipartisan way. It was their way or the highway.
  Their way was a remarkable expansion of an entitlement. Remember, the 
State Children's Health Insurance Program was a discretionary program, 
which means that the Federal Government determines what resources it 
has available to provide that kind of care, and it works with the 
States to make certain that the amount of money is there but that it is 
not on one of those automatic trajectories to the sky in terms of 
spending. It is not one of those programs that will assist in 
bankrupting the Nation, as David Walker talks about.
  But what does this majority do, this new majority, this Democrat 
majority that talks all the time about being fiscally responsible? It 
takes that program and instead of keeping it in the discretionary side, 
that side where folks at home can be able to appreciate that it is that 
side of the budget where if they are able to afford it, they utilize 
the money in that area, and it puts it in the entitlement side.
  Instead of these bar graphs and those pie charts being accurate in 
their prediction, that will be significantly off. In fact, they will be 
off so much that we will reach this position of not being able to 
sustain those programs and of decreasing economic activity in this 
Nation and of lowering wages and of losing jobs in this Nation sooner 
because of the recent actions of this Democrat majority.
  They made it an entitlement. They did all sorts of other things which 
I thought were egregious, as well as they pitted seniors against 
children in their effort to try to pay for it. You don't see the kind 
of reform that is so necessary.
  So, again, Mr. Speaker, you would think that this new majority would 
say, well, it looks like when we look into the future that we have got 
a problem on our hands. We have got a problem, financial problem. It is 
our responsibility as elected representatives of the people of the 
United States that we need to be responsible, that we need to be 
responsive to the concerns of our constituents, that we need to make 
certain that the programs that we put in place will allow Americans to 
continue to dream and continue to have that great opportunity for 
success.
  We need to make certain that we don't allow the entitlement programs 
to consume an ever greater portion of the Federal budget so that that 
discretionary side, which, Mr. Speaker, as

[[Page 24585]]

you know, is not just the military, it is roads, it is highways, it is 
all transportation, it is all funding for the aviation, it is all of 
the other kinds of programs. It is jobs, housing. It is the wonderful 
housing bill that we worked on today.
  It is all those kinds of things. It is everything that you think of 
when you think of the Federal Government having activity, everything is 
all of the discretionary side, and it will be consumed by the 
entitlements, which means all of the things that folks think about 
other than those three programs will not be able to take place.
  So you would think that this new majority would say, well, we better 
get our act in order, get our House in order, better work together in a 
collegial and a positive and a bipartisan way to be able to solve this 
problem. It is what we have been trying to do, what we have been 
talking about, what we have proposed.
  In fact, we did so in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. That act 
reformed entitlements, about $130 billion of reform. That is one of the 
big things that resulted in the ability to balance the budget, to have 
a surplus. That was done with a Republican Congress and a Democrat 
President. In fact, in 2005, in spite of all the kicking and screaming 
from the other side, another $40 billion in appropriate entitlement 
reform.
  What has happened with the budget for this year among this majority, 
who clearly can read the same charts, who get the same information from 
the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, and Comptroller David 
Walker, who can look at the same projections? What have they done in 
terms of entitlement reform? Nothing. Nothing, Mr. Speaker.
  That is an abrogation of duty; that is irresponsible out of this 
majority. The American people are paying attention because, again, when 
I go home, they want these problems solved. They want them solved. They 
ask why can't you work together and get these problems solved. Mr. 
Speaker, we stand ready, willing and able to work together to get these 
problems solved.
  We are going to talk a little more about entitlements, but we want to 
talk a fair amount about the taxing that has been hoisted upon the 
American public by this current majority. We will talk about spending. 
There are a number of ways you can increase revenue to the Federal 
Government and cover the programs that are so vital and necessary to 
the American people.
  I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that increasing taxes and increasing 
spending together are not 2 of them. I believe that we ought to be 
decreasing taxes and decreasing spending and being fiscally responsible 
as a Congress.
  I am pleased to be joined by my good friend, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who is a fiscal hawk, an individual who 
recognizes and appreciates the importance of balancing budgets and 
making certain that we don't spend beyond our means at the Federal 
level. I look forward to your comments. I am happy to yield to you.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good work of 
the gentleman from Georgia on so many areas that I work with you on, 
Financial Services and otherwise; but here tonight most specifically 
what is important to the American public and American taxpayer, and 
that is just how much money is coming out of their wallet, out of their 
pocket here and being sent down to Washington, where those dollars are 
going and whether are being held responsibly.
  I am not sure whether you were on the floor at the moment, but prior 
to your speaking we had a Member from the other side of the aisle on 
the floor giving their comments, and the gentleman from the other side 
of the aisle, the Democratic Caucus Chair, who was speaking for a 
little bit about the new book that is out there on Federal 
responsibility and issues of such. Alan Greenspan just did the book.
  If you listen to his comments, it almost harkens back to prior to the 
elections and the exact same rhetoric we heard at that time as we did 
just 35 minutes ago from the other side of the aisle. He was lambasting 
and had been lambasting this administration and the past Congresses, 
saying that they have spent too much money, that the past leadership in 
this House was being fiscally irresponsible, that they were passing 
bill after bill, spending increase after spending increase.
  On and on the rhetoric went, just 35 minutes ago, the same rhetoric 
that we heard during the last election about looking towards the past 
and all the mistakes that were made in the past.
  Now if you listen to that, you would always assume that the next 
words out of their mouth were going to be: But this is what we are 
going to do when we get into the majority. We are going to reverse 
those trends. If spending was too high, we are going to go in the other 
direction.
  That is what you think would be the next words out of their mouth, 
but of course they can't be. Here we are in September, 9 months into 
this new 110th Congress, under the leadership now of the Democrat 
majority, both in this House and the Senate, and we have their track 
record to look at to see what course do they take. They lambasted, 
attacked the path of too much spending.
  Did they reduce spending? They did not. Instead, they have piled onto 
that spending. Increased spending in the past was bad. Well, they 
exacerbated that problem by spending even more.
  There was a study recently that goes to this point, taking a look now 
at this new 110th Congress. The National Taxpayers Union, basically a 
nonpartisan organization, looking at both sides of the aisle fairly 
recently did a study that shows that the 110th Congress, both Senate 
and House, have introduced far more bills for budget savings than they 
have in previous administrations, previous Congresses.
  On first blush, that would be a positive thing until, again, you 
think of what the record has been over the last 9 months. Has anyone 
seen any of those savings bills passed through this House and passed 
through the Senate and get signed into law? I can't think of any.
  It's one thing to talk the rhetoric, which they have been doing. It 
is another thing to drop in the savings bills, which some of them may 
have been doing. But when we see the leadership will not post any of 
those savings bills, that is the problem. For each bill introduced in 
this House that would reduce Federal spending, and this makes the 
point, there have been over 20 bills, a 20 to 1 ratio increasing the 
size and amount of spending in Congress.
  If you additionally listened to the other side, they will talk about 
and applaud themselves and pat themselves on the back about PAYGO, 
which you have already discussed, which is a good term described in a 
very elementary way to say pay-as-you-go, something that all families 
have to do in this country, and we wish Congress could live by that as 
well.
  Well, there are two aspects to PAYGO. One is the spending side of the 
equation. Let's talk about that for a minute. I don't know whether you 
have this chart up there. I know you have a number of charts. One of 
the charts is headed ``New Majority's Fiscal Irresponsibility.'' I 
don't want to make you go through all your charts.
  One of the ways you can deal with PAYGO is this, and this is exactly 
what every family does as well. When the family sits down and looks at 
their budget for that week or that month as far as paying their bills, 
they have to prioritize and say we may have a new expense here that we 
would like or need to pay, but we don't have enough money in the 
checkbook. So what are we going to do, we are going to reduce spending 
elsewhere.
  Good idea. American families should do it; Congress should do it. 
This side tried to reduce spending by 2 percent. That didn't get 
anywhere. How about 1 percent? Can we agree there is 1 percent of 
waste, fraud, and abuse in Congress? You would think we could agree to 
that.
  But if we could look to the chart right next to you right now, what 
that chart says is as follows: when that 1 percent reduction 
legislation was proposed to this House, who voted for it and who was 
against it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate you pointing that out. What this 
chart

[[Page 24586]]

demonstrates is that the rhetoric that we hear from the other side 
doesn't match the action. It happens in so many different areas; it is 
hard to keep up with. I call it Orwellian democracy, which is that the 
words don't match the actions.
  This chart demonstrates the seven appropriations bills. A number of 
us, and you were so very, very supportive of these efforts, attempted 
to say the Federal Government is spending too much, we ought to 
decrease that. If you don't want to decrease it in certain specific 
programs, then let's just decrease it by a certain percent.
  In this instance, I promoted amendments that would decrease it by 1 
percent. Decrease these seven appropriations bills by 1 percent. That 
is one penny out of every dollar. That reduction would have saved $3.9 
billion. Yet the individuals who so often say over and over and over 
that they are champions of fiscal responsibility, that they certainly 
don't want to see us overspend, and you see on the far right there the 
number of times that they voted for and then against this type of 
amendment, overwhelmingly voted against it, 95 percent almost all the 
time.
  I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I will leave you to make that point in 
greater detail because I think it is a significant point.
  I will leave you on this note as well, that the other side of the 
ledger sheet, if you are not going to cut spending, the other side is 
increased revenue. I believe you will probably show a chart that you 
will have later on with regard to how they have been doing it. But the 
American public must know this in a larger sense, that since the 
Democrats have been in power, they have given us the largest tax 
increase in America's history. The last time we had such a large tax 
increase was back when the Democrats were in charge 12 years ago.
  It was just a week ago, a couple of weeks ago when they wanted to 
raise taxes by $53 billion with regard to a piece of legislation that 
they had no offsets for. Additionally, just yesterday, or the day 
before, they wanted to raise taxes again by another billion dollars on 
redundant programs.
  So as you pointed out, there are two ways to do this, either cut 
spending, which they are not agreeable to do, or raise taxes; and of 
course we have seen the history over the last month: every time they 
get a chance, they do that.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my good friend for coming and helping 
out and participating and trying to shed light, trying to put a little 
fact on the table when we talk about the issue of taxing and spending.
  I do, Mr. Speaker, want to talk fairly specifically about taxes 
because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the general consensus out in America 
is that the majority party, the Democrats, are the party of tax and 
spend. I grew up believing that, I grew up thinking that, and that is 
one of the reasons that I was so staunchly a Republican as I entered my 
political career, because I thought it was most appropriate to decrease 
taxes and to decrease spending at the State and the Federal level, 
because I believe firmly, as I believe most Americans believe, that the 
American people are better able to decide how to spend their hard-
earned money, not the Federal Government, not the State government.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle tend to believe by and 
large that the Federal Government knows best; that the choices that the 
Federal Government makes with how to spend individuals' money, those 
are better choices than that person could make for themselves. I simply 
don't believe it and I don't think the American people believe that.
  But what has happened in a relatively short period of time, Mr. 
Speaker, we have been in this 110th Congress now a little over 9 
months, right about 9 months, in a relatively short period of time the 
bills that have been passed would increase taxes on the American 
people, and truly across the board, not just a small focal area. They 
will talk about increasing taxes on the rich, and we will talk about 
that a little bit, but in fact what they have passed through this House 
are bills repeatedly that increase taxes on virtually every single 
American. And why do I say that? Well, they passed a budget that 
includes this portion, these parameters laid out in terms of increasing 
taxes.
  When you talk about ordinary income, the highest rate would go from 
35 percent to 39.6 percent. When you talk about capital gains, it would 
go from 15 percent to 20 percent. Dividends, 15 percent to 39.6 
percent. Those are all increases, Mr. Speaker. They are also facts, not 
opinions. They are facts.
  The estate tax in 2010 will be zero. That is the death tax. That 
means that if you are unfortunate enough to have somebody in your 
family that dies, that their estate on that day that they die, you 
don't have to write a check to the Federal Government. But on January 
1, 2011, with the budget that the new majority passed, that amount, 
that death tax goes right back up to 55 percent, which is where it was 
when we have been trying to get it down, 55 percent. That is an 
increase, Mr. Speaker.
  The child tax credit, the amount of money that you are given from the 
Federal Government as a credit to assist in raising your child, $1,000, 
in 2010, 2011 down to $500, cut in half, slashed in half.
  The lowest tax bracket, curiously enough, those at the lowest end of 
the economic spectrum in 2010 would have a taxable income tax at 10 
percent, and then in 2011 at 15 percent.
  What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? What does that mean to people? The 
other side is fond of saying that all they are going to do is tax the 
rich. They demonize the rich, because there is a tried-and-true method 
in politics which is to divide people. We believe, I believe that it is 
important to bring people together to work together in a positive way 
to solve problems, to solve the challenges that we have as the American 
people. And so they say, well, all we are going to do is increase taxes 
on the rich.
  In fact, with these tax rates here, one in five people who benefit 
from the lower rate on capital gains that was passed earlier in this 
decade have incomes below $50,000. That is 20 percent have incomes 
below $50,000. So I guess that all we can conclude from that is that 
our friends on the other side, the majority party, believe that anybody 
who makes less than $50,000 is rich, the only conclusion that we could 
reach given their rhetoric, given what they say. One in four people who 
benefit from the lowered rate on dividends, one in four, 25 percent 
have an income less than $50,000. Again, are those people rich, Mr. 
Speaker? Are those people rich? When you pit people against each other, 
it doesn't do well or a service to our Nation in terms of the 
discussion as we move forward.
  How many folks is that? 2.4 million people earning less than $50,000 
benefit from the capital gains tax relief, 2.4 million Americans; 5.4 
million Americans who earn less than $50,000 benefit from the dividend 
tax relief, 5.4 million. In fact, 58 percent of the people who have 
benefited, Americans who have benefited from the capital gains tax cuts 
earn less than $100,000 a year. Over half of the individuals earn less 
than $100,000 a year. So I guess all those people, Mr. Speaker, by the 
definition of our friends on the other side, are rich.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking a bit about taxes and about the Orwellian 
nature of the rhetoric that we hear from folks on the other side of the 
aisle as they continually say, well, we will only tax the rich and we 
will only tax corporations, as if corporations are this inanimate 
object that don't relate at all to the American people, that there is 
no nexus between the American people's jobs and businesses. In fact, 
when they tax at the rate that they do or that they propose, it affects 
virtually every single individual in this Nation who has a job. And, 
Mr. Speaker, that is personal. That is personal to those folks.
  So we have talked about the $392.5 billion tax increase that was 
incorporated in the budget that our friends adopted on the other side. 
We have talked about that, and we outlined

[[Page 24587]]

where that came from with all of the increases in income taxes, capital 
gains taxes, the death tax coming back. But what else have they done? 
Virtually a new tax at every single turn. A new bill comes through 
here, and it is a new tax or it is a new fee. $15 billion in the energy 
bill that was passed, $15 billion in new taxes on American 
corporations, American oil corporations. And I know it is popular to 
beat up on the oil companies. But, Mr. Speaker, if you tax them more, 
who is going to pay those taxes? The American people are going to pay 
those taxes. Corporations don't make any money, they don't mint any 
money. What they do is American people purchase their products. And if 
they are taxed more, the American people will pay more for those taxes.
  In addition to what that means is that we are penalizing American 
corporations. And they didn't tax foreign oil companies. That is not 
what they did. They taxed American oil companies $15 billion; $5.8 
billion in new tobacco taxes. That might be appropriate. In fact, as a 
physician I strongly believe that individuals ought not smoke. Ought 
not smoke. But what they have done is incorporate new tobacco taxes in 
a children's health insurance bill, so that as you decrease the number 
of folks that are smoking, you will have to find that money elsewhere. 
And then where does that come from? Yes, Mr. Speaker, you guessed it, 
new taxes.
  $7.5 billion in new taxes in the farm bill. Remember, Mr. Speaker, at 
every single turn, virtually every single turn, every new bill, this 
new majority has seen to find an opportunity to raise taxes on the 
American people.
  Five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax increase for infrastructure. That 
infrastructure is an appropriate thing to pay for. But, Mr. Speaker, as 
you know, when you set a budget, you ought to set priorities. And one 
of the priorities of this Nation ought to be infrastructure 
improvement, but we have got enough money to be able to do that if we 
would set those priorities. We ought not be increasing the taxes on the 
American people.
  A 50-cent-per-gallon, 50-cents-per-gallon tax increase to study 
global warming. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is fairly well 
documented that the temperature on the Earth has increased some over 
the past couple of years. I don't know that that is due to human 
activity, but I do believe that we ought to be studying it and looking 
at it. I also believe that it ought to be a priority of our Nation and 
it ought to be a priority of our budget, but I don't believe that we 
need to increase taxes in order to perform that study. I believe that 
those resources are certainly already there.
  New taxes on homeowners by ending the mortgage deductions. That is 
what has been proposed by the other side.
  And in the SCHIP bill again, in the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program, there was a small little portion of it that many people didn't 
even know they were voting on when they voted on it that will provide, 
if it becomes law, for a tax on every single personal private health 
insurance policy in this Nation. Every single one. Mr. Speaker, it is 
not the way that we ought to be proceeding to increase economic 
development to solve the challenges that we have by taxing Americans 
over and over and over.
  I want to spend a few brief moments talking about taxes on 
corporations, because our friends on the other side, it is one of their 
favorite pinatas. They beat up on the corporations left, right, and 
center, and they do so as if the corporations in America aren't paying 
any tax at all, they aren't paying their fair share. You will hear them 
say that, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the facts, if you look at the 
facts, then we could see where the American corporations stand as it 
relates to the rest of the industrialized world.
  Now, one would think, given the Orwellian rhetoric that we have heard 
from the other side, that American corporations are clearly not paying 
their fair share. Right? They are not paying as much as they might be 
in, say, oh, pick a nation. Canada? Canadian corporations pay about 22 
percent. American corporations, oh, by the way, they are down there on 
the far right on this chart, Mr. Speaker. They are down there on the 
far right paying the greatest percentage of taxes of their income of 
any other nation, tied with Spain. Granted, we are tied with Spain, 35 
percent. Switzerland down here, 8 or 9 percent. Ireland is about 12 
percent.
  In fact, Ireland is a great case study, because Ireland used to be 
way down at this end of the chart, way down at that end. In fact, what 
they did was decrease their corporate taxes, decrease their taxes on 
corporations and businesses. And what happened, Mr. Speaker? An 
incredible economic boom, an incredible economic development occurred, 
because when you allow corporations to create more jobs, more people 
get jobs, more money is created in terms of revenue for the Federal 
Government. And it seems counterintuitive, but when you decrease taxes 
on both people and on corporations, there is more money that comes into 
the Federal Government.
  So, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the facts, when you look at the 
facts you appreciate that the United States corporations, again, a 
wonderful whipping boy and it is easy to criticize them because it is 
tough for them to defend themselves, especially with the rhetoric that 
we so often hear on this floor of the House. And I find that troubling 
and I think that is distressing, and it ought to be to the American 
people, Mr. Speaker. Because when you look at the facts, what you see 
is that United States corporations are taxed more than any other 
industrialized nation except for Spain, and we are tied with Spain, 35 
percent. So those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.
  Now, what is the solution? Well, the solution is to respect the hard-
earned money of the American taxpayer. That is the solution. We have 
proposed a taxpayer bill of rights. I encourage my colleagues on the 
other side to look at the bill, to cosponsor the bill. I would love to 
have it passed. I would love to bring it to the floor and passed.
  What does it include? It says that the Federal Government ought not 
grow beyond their ability to pay for it. That is the balanced budget 
portion of the bill. You ought not spend more than you take in. You 
ought to make certain that you end deficit spending. We believe 
taxpayers have a right to that. We believe that taxpayers have a right 
to receive back each dollar that they entrust to the Federal Government 
for their retirement. That is the Social Security portion. As you well 
know, Mr. Speaker, we talked about entitlements earlier, entitlement 
reform is imperative. If young people across this Nation are going to 
be able to receive back with some benefit the resources that they have 
sent to the Federal Government for their retirement, if that is going 
to be able to occur, then what needs to happen is that that money needs 
to be put into a fund that is not used for anything else. Social 
Security trust fund money ought to be used for Social Security alone. 
That is what the taxpayer bill of rights says. That is what we say in 
our bill. That is what many individuals across this Chamber on both 
sides of the aisle have said that they support.

                              {time}  1815

  Well, Mr. Speaker, let's vote on that. That's a positive move to 
make. In fact, that would be a bipartisan positive move to make. We 
encourage that to happen. We believe that taxpayers have a right to a 
balanced budget amendment without raising taxes.
  As we've demonstrated already, the current majority believes that if 
you just tax more, you'll be able to increase the money coming to the 
Federal Government to pay for all these programs, these new programs 
that they want to enact.
  In fact, what happens if you tax more, you decrease money coming to 
the Federal Government. And every single President that has decreased 
taxes recognized that. John Kennedy did when he decreased taxes, saw a 
significant increase to the Federal Government in terms of revenue. 
Ronald Reagan did when he decreased taxes, saw an increasing amount of 
money to the Federal Government. And certainly in this administration 
we've seen significant increased revenues to the Federal Government. 
When you decrease

[[Page 24588]]

taxes, money to the Federal Government increases. Again, it sounds 
counterintuitive; but it's not, because what happens is that American 
people get to keep more of their hard-earned money.
  And you remember, Mr. Speaker, we talked about choices, who ought to 
be able to choose. One of the most fundamental principles that we 
believe, I believe, is that the American individual, the American 
citizen ought to be the one that has the right to choose when they save 
or they spend or they invest, not the Federal Government, with their 
money. So many of our good friends on the other side believe that they 
can make better decisions than the American people with that hard-
earned taxpayer money.
  We believe that you ought to be able to get to a balanced budget 
without raising taxes. We have a bill that will allow that to happen. 
We strongly encourage our friends on the other side to support it.
  We believe that taxpayers have a right to fundamental and fair tax 
reform. Some of my friends are supporters of a flat tax, a flat income 
tax. Some are supporters of a fair tax, the national retail sales tax, 
which I believe to be the most appropriate way to align our form of 
taxation in our Nation with our form of commerce. We would then 
incentivize all the things that we say that we want, like hard work and 
vision and entrepreneurship and success. Right now we punish all those 
things. Our current tax system punishes people when they do more, when 
they succeed, when they die. Those aren't things we ought to be taxing. 
My goodness.
  And we believe also that the taxpayers have a right to a 
supermajority required for any tax increase. In fact, as you know, Mr. 
Speaker, that was the rule of the House until this new majority took 
over. When they changed the rules on the very first day that we met in 
January of this year, they changed the rule to make it so that it only 
took a majority to raise taxes on any bill that comes through this 
House, not a supermajority, which meant 60 percent before.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it's very clear. We believe, I believe, that working 
together positively, productively we can solve the challenges that we 
have before us.
  It's an incredible honor to represent the Sixth District of Georgia 
in this United States House of Representatives. It's an incredible 
honor for each and every one of us to be a Member here.
  But what our constituents demand of us, I believe, is responsibility 
to act together and to work together in a positive way, in an uplifting 
way, in a way that will make certain that we preserve the American 
Dream and a system in place, an economic system in place that will 
allow the majority of Americans, the vast majority of Americans, if not 
every single American, the opportunity to succeed in his or her own 
life.
  I challenge my colleagues across the aisle to work together 
positively in that direction. I know that you've got partners who will 
assist you on this side.

                          ____________________