Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 37: Page 7, line 6, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 38: Page 8, line 5, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 39: Page 8, line 9, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 40: Page 9, line 5, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $54,823,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 41: Page 19, line 3, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $4,957,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 42: Page 29, line 21, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 43: Page 30, line 14, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 44: Page 33, line 9, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 45: Page 48, line 24, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 18: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 18: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I thank the chairman, and I'm pleased to come to the floor today and offer this amendment. And it's a little different vein and spirit than we've offered other appropriate fiscally responsible amendments for other appropriations bills, but it's similar. But I urge my colleagues to listen closely, because the nuance has changed greatly.

Before I do begin, though, I want to make certain that any Member listening, or anybody who has heard the previous discussion and the assertion that the amendments that are offered by this group of fiscally responsible individuals can't even get a majority of our own conference, that's not true. But there's a lot of untruth spoken on this floor. For a significant majority of the Members of at least the Republican side of the aisle clearly support fiscally responsible amendments. I'm hoping and praying for the day that our friends on the other side join us in that.

I do agree with my friends who spoke previously that this is about priorities. It is indeed about priorities. This amendment before us today would reduce the increase in the spending in this portion of the appropriations bills by $750 million a year, or $7.5 billion over 10 years. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you remember that number, $7.5 billion over 10 years, because it's there for a reason.

But before I get into the specific reasons of that, I want to talk a little bit about the process and the disappointment that so many of us on this side of the aisle have in this process, and so the disappointment that many folks who have to be muted on the other side have in the process.

There were grand promises of bipartisanship as we began this session of Congress earlier this year. And bipartisanship is the least that we have had on virtually every single issue. And I understand at the beginning the new majority felt that they had to move forward with many of their issues, and that's appropriate. That's appropriate. That's their due, given the results of last November.

However, what we've seen recently has buried any guise of bipartisanship. And, in fact, the last 2 weeks have been astounding and actually point to more astounding activities over the next 10 days.

The SCHIP bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, which was adopted in a bipartisan way 10 years ago, is up for reauthorization; and now this new majority plans in a unilateral and anti-bipartisanship way to cut Medicare to aid State bureaucracies; cut Medicare and give that money to State bureaucracies in an anti-bipartisan way.

The flood insurance bill we've got in the committee right now that passed last year never got through the Senate but passed the House last year. It passed, over 400 individuals to 4. And now we have in our committee today an anti-bipartisan bill that belies any attempt at bipartisanship by the other side.

And then the farm bill that was alluded to by my good friend from Georgia just a little bit ago. This farm bill that's going to be on the floor apparently tomorrow or today, depending on when the majority decides to bring it, came out of committee virtually unanimously, virtually unanimously, both sides of the aisle, bipartisan. And yet over the past 24 hours what we have seen is an anti-bipartisan bill that puts in that bill a tax increase of $7.5 billion.

Mr. Chairman, you remember the $7.5 billion that I mentioned before.

So this amendment before us today is an amendment to reduce the increase from 3.1 percent over last year's bill to 1.6 percent. So it would take that reduction in the increase and would utilize $750 million a year, or $7.5 billion to, attribute to the farm bill that would then make it so there wouldn't have to be any tax increases that my friends on the other side so love, but there wouldn't have to be any tax increases for that portion of the farm bill.

This is a fiscally responsible way. This is the kind of flexibility that I believe our constituents desire when they ask Congress and they ask Washington to be responsive to their needs, to respect their pocketbook, to make certain that they are able to keep more of their hard-earned money and not be subject to the kind of remarkable tax increases that we've seen by the other side of the aisle.

So I would encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment, utilize those extra monies that the majority is so adept at finding, make it so that the farm bill needs no tax increases whatsoever.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat amused by my friend's comments. It brings to mind what I have come to describe this Congress as, and that is the Orwellian democracy that we see day in and day out. The accusation is that this side of the aisle spent too much money, so that side of the aisle is going to ``stop digging.'' Well, they're stopping digging to the tune of a 3.1 percent increase, billions of dollars of increase. So their response to don't spend that much is let's spend more. And that's where the Orwellian democracy comes in.

And the accusation from the other side that comes, that says, well, you don't want to spend this, you're going to cut this program, you're going to cut COPS, you're going to cut programs that are vital to our Nation, it's kind of like having your child come to you and say, I'd like to have an increase in my allowance. And say they were getting $5 a week. They wanted $10 a week, and you settled on $7.50 a week, and then your son or your daughter says, hey, you just cut my allowance by $2.50. That doesn't make any sense. But that's the argument. That's the argument on the other side.

So we endeavor to have fiscal responsibility. We endeavor to be responsible with the hard-earned tax money of the American worker.

I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from Virginia, the chief deputy whip, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Chairman, once again I am amused by the comments of my good friends and colleagues on the other side.

The fact of the matter is the departments that run these programs that we are addressing right here asked for $2.3 billion less than our good friends on the other side are proposing us to spend, which means that they believe they can accomplish the goals that have been given to them with $2.3 billion less.

And they talk about all this wonderful caring they have for families. Well, the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation that they passed in their budget, about $2,700 per family, is a peculiar way of showing you are caring for the American family.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, my good friend from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Chairman, at this point I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 15 seconds to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out that there isn't a corporation in this world that pays taxes that don't come from somewhere other than the back pockets of the American people. There isn't a single corporation in this Nation that doesn't pay taxes where that money doesn't come from individuals.

Corporations don't pay taxes; it's passed through, it goes to the individual. So to say that any increase in taxes on corporations doesn't affect the American people is ridiculous. It's ridiculous. To talk about the oil companies that have their taxes increased, all that the majority has done is driven us to greater reliance on foreign oil.

This amendment would decrease the increase of spending in this portion of the appropriations bill by 1.4 percent, $750 million a year, $7.5 billion over 10 years, in order to cover what the majority says is the desire and the need to have a tax increase for the farm bill.

This is the kind of fiscally responsible spending and appropriations that the American people are demanding. They aren't interested in a government that is so large that it can take away everything that they need. They believe they can make better decisions with their money than the government makes with their money.

And so we strongly urge our colleagues to adopt this amendment to avoid a tax increase on the farm bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise and with all due respect would ask my colleagues to simply read the amendment. The amendment states, total appropriations made in this act are hereby reduced by $750 million. That is not an across-the-board cut. That allows the agencies to determine where best they are able to absorb a decrease in the increase that they would be provided by this underlying bill. What we challenge with this 1.4 percent reduction in the increase is for each of those agencies to find 14 cents out of every $10.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that is what families do all across this Nation every day. So our priorities are the American family. Our priorities are the American family. We take our responsibility seriously to keep it fiscally prudent and fiscally responsible.

Mr. Chairman, we believe this amendment moves us in that direction. We would urge our colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, health care decisions are often the most personal and important decisions ever made, and those decisions should rightly be made by patients and doctors, not bureaucrats and insurance companies. So it's concerning that the Democrat leadership plan to move forward with a large expansion of Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care under the guise of providing care for children.

The House Democrat plan would cost $50 to $80 billion, and include children whose families have an annual income up to $82,000, making 71 percent of all children in America eligible for government-run socialized medicine, a level of income where 89 percent of children already have private health insurance. Why? Because these Washington politicians believe they can make better health care decisions for America's families. They don't trust patients, and they don't trust doctors.

As a physician I know that the best medical decisions are made by patients and families. The positive solution is patient-centered health care, making insurance available to all patients and families. Let's put patients in charge, not Washington. That's what Americans want.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment in a little different vein. It's an amendment to increase funding in the Math and Science Partnership Program under the National Science Foundation by $2 million, and reduce by $2 million the Department management salaries and expenses under the Department of Commerce.

I'll offer an amendment here to increase American competitiveness and to improve opportunities for America's children. My amendment proposes to offer additional funding to the Math-Science Partnership Program under the National Science Foundation. We must fund important priorities to ensure that our Nation continues to see positive growth in our youth in the area of math and science.

In my home State of Georgia, I recently had the opportunity to join over 25,000 students and teachers and researchers from 31 different countries at the Georgia Dome for the FIRST competition. The FIRST, as many of my colleagues know, stands for For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. It's a robotics competition. If any of my colleagues haven't been to a robotics competition, I encourage them to go see one. It is a remarkable experience.

I was extremely impressed with the level of enthusiasm and the remarkable educational benefit with this type of an initiative that's provided to thousands of American students. We should continue to promote this and other similar programs throughout the Nation.

I'm sure that my colleagues recognize the significance of promoting a strong interest in math and science and technology education. These fields of learning and research are vital to our country's continued success. In fact, investment in basic research and programs like this is an essential element in assuring future prosperity, security and leadership in our rapidly evolving world.

The National Science Foundation has a mission to achieve excellence in science and technology, engineering and mathematics educational at all levels and all settings, from kindergarten through postdoctoral training. One of the most important successful initiatives under the NSF is the Math and Science Partnership Program, established in 2002, to strengthen and reform mathematics and science education for children around the Nation.

It's important to offer children guidance and examples set by mentors and role models, and provide students the opportunity to learn about the importance of higher education, and they're exposed to career options, especially from those folks who love and are enthusiastic about science and engineering and mathematics.

Under this commendable program, each State administers its own competitive grant program for institutions of higher education, K-12 schools and local partners.

In addition, the MSP program focuses on raising educational standards to prepare children for postsecondary education in math, science or engineering.

This program is worthy of additional funding because of its positive results for improving math and science skills which are vital for a developing workforce that's capable of increasing America's competitiveness internationally.

All jobs of the future will require a basic understanding of math and science. In fact, the 10-year employment projections showed that of the 20 fastest-growing occupations, 15 of them require significant math and science preparation.

This small adjustment is a symbol of our greater commitment to STEM education programs. Support for these programs is vital for the continued success of our children, our citizens and our Nation, and I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my friend from New Jersey, and I appreciate the chairman's comments, and I appreciate what the committee has done in terms of bumping up this money. I'm so impressed with the opportunities that children can have with appropriate programs like the FIRST program and like the math and science program.

I look forward to working with you as we move forward through this process to make certain that we're bringing all the resources to bear to be able to give our kids the greatest opportunity in the area of math and science.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 34: Page 22, line 19, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Page 68, line 21, after the first dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

Page 68, line 21, after the second dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.