Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding to me. We've heard our Democratic friends talk about IPAB, of which Chairman Ryan was just discussing. These 15 bureaucrats are nothing but a backstop, a backstop there to cut lower Medicare spending. In baseball parlance, Mr. Chairman, backstop is sometimes synonymous with the catcher, a catcher who literally will throw every senior out at second base. I like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Van Hollen, my classmate, Mr. Andrews, who just spoke, but we're a country of laws and not of men, and I don't like anything about their budget. Our budget incorporates the Ryan-Wyden plan to save Medicare from bankruptcy and health care rationing. Therefore, it's with deep concern for seniors that I've listened to my Democratic colleagues suggest that the bipartisan Ryan-Wyden plan will end Medicare as we know it. Mr. Chairman, I cannot stress this point enough: Medicare, as the chairman just said, Medicare will be bankrupt as early as 2016 because ObamaCare already ended Medicare as we know it. It stole $575 billion from Medicare in order to pay for ObamaCare. I offered a simple amendment during ObamaCare that said any Medicare saving must go back into Medicare to save Medicare. Who could disagree with that? Well, the Democrats in the House did. Twice they defeated my amendment. Republican efforts to save Medicare from bankruptcy were thwarted by House Democrats because President Obama needed a piggy bank to pay for ObamaCare. Today we have a bipartisan plan to save Medicare, created by House Republicans and Senate Democrats who put partisanship aside because our seniors need us to save Medicare from bankruptcy and save them from ObamaCare. If the Democrats vote against this plan to save Medicare, will they put forward their own plan to save Medicare? They're going to have an opportunity, indeed, even to vote for the Obama budget recommendation as well as their own. Mr. Chairman, we've heard a great deal of rhetoric from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, yet the silence on my question today has been deafening because they don't have a plan. And I hope they will stand up now and prove me wrong by telling me what is their plan. Mr. Chairman, not only does this budget responsibly reform and save Medicare, this budget also charts the path to fiscal discipline that is long overdue in this city. H. Con. Res. 112 lowers spending by $1.1 trillion below even what the House passed last year. This budget proposes $5.33 trillion below what President Obama proposed in his own budget.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3309, the FCC Process Reform Act, and I would like to take a moment to commend Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden for his leadership on this legislation and his diligent work in moving it through regular order. Among the many reasons that it is necessary to make statutory reforms at the FCC, I would like to speak to one particular aspect of this legislation that I think is critically important to improving the way in which the FCC operates. H.R. 3309 will require the FCC to establish shot clocks to set timelines to compel the Commission to act. Under current law, where shot clocks are not compulsory, inconsistencies at the FCC continue to plague the telecommunications industry and have placed unnecessary burdens on our job creators. For example, there's an Atlanta-based company by the name of Cbeyond that specializes in providing IT and communications services to small businesses across the country. They employ, Mr. Chairman, approximately 1,600 people, and like many employers within the industry, they're forced to wait on the whims of the FCC. Unfortunately, many case proceedings linger for years with no resolution, and this stifles growth for companies within the telecommunications industry. Just over 2 years ago, I, along with our former colleague and now Governor of Georgia, Nathan Deal, sent a letter to the FCC asking that they look closely at broadband infrastructure initiatives that would bolster one of our greatest assets for economic recovery--small businesses. In that letter we referenced a petition filed in November of 2009 that is now part of an FCC proceeding commonly referred to as the Business Broadband Docket, which is a proceeding focused on broadband infrastructure used to serve small businesses. Mr. Chairman, both the petition and the Business Broadband Docket remain pending at the FCC--not only with no resolution, but also no movement toward any conclusion. This behavior by the FCC is unacceptable and has occurred under both Democrats and Republicans. This anecdote highlights the need for a shot clock placed on the FCC. Not only do these shot clocks need to be established, but they also need to be honored. This alone will make the FCC work in a more efficient manner by creating more regulatory certainty in the telecommunications industry. I urge all of my colleagues to support establishing a shot clock at the FCC and support H.R. 3309. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, February 16, 2010. Julius Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission, 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Genachowski, As you know, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires the FCC to develop a national plan to ensure that all Americans have access to broadband and the FCC must deliver its plan to Congress by March 17, 2010. The plan also must provide a strategy for achieving maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and greater affordability of the service for all Americans. As our country grapples with the worst unemployment numbers we have faced in decades, it is critical that we do all we can to assist small businesses, the driving force of our economy. Yet continuing to add to the deficit is not the solution. The proposal Mr. Geiger outlines in the attached Opinion Editorial would not require any additional federal spending, and incumbent local exchange carriers would be permitted to provide access to competitors at retail rate. This proposal would allow telecom innovators to gain access to the bandwidth necessary to push efficiency-enhancing, cloud-based applications to small businesses, applications such as virtualized desktops, hosted digital image and file management, high-resolution video conferencing, broadcast/ live video streaming, robust data protection, cloud-based backup, and sophisticated video security systems. These advanced applications would lower start-up costs for small businesses and enable them to implement their business plans, innovate and create jobs. At the same time, the incumbent local exchange carriers would sell more bandwidth at the same prices as they sell to any other customer. The National Broadband Plan presents an opportunity for the FCC to bolster one of our nation's greatest assets for economic recovery--small business. As members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over this issue, we are hopeful that the FCC's National Broadband Plan will include broadband initiatives which will specifically address the broadband needs of our small business community. Sincerely, Nathan Deal, Member of Congress. Phil Gingrey, Member of Congress.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Bonamaci amendment.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I rise in opposition to the Bonamici amendment because it would indefinitely delay critical medical liability reforms that will save American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and save our health care system upwards of $200 billion a year in unnecessary spending. The amendment before us would delay enactment of the tort reforms outlined in H.R. 5 until the Secretary of Health and Human Services submits a report to Congress on the potential effects of medical liability reform on health care premiums. However, the amendment does not require the Secretary to produce a report by a date certain. In fact, the Secretary could simply choose to never issue a report and forever delay the reforms at the heart of this underlying bill. Regardless of what one thinks about H.R. 5, I do not believe it is appropriate to vest the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to permanently block enactment of a law based on the inability to produce a report. I realize that there are some who might disagree because they would like to provide the Secretary with the authority under IPAB to unilaterally dictate the medical choices of seniors. Given the track record of this administration on liability reform and their failure to address the issues in ObamaCare, HHS should not be given the power to bob and weave on this issue once again. I do find the amendment somewhat ironic, and I actually wish the author of the amendment was in Congress during debate over PPACA. Maybe if we had this type of amendment then, we would not be saddled with a law that has taken away people's health care choices and raised their health care premiums. We were promised that the law would reduce health care premiums by $2,500 a year. During debate on PPACA we knew that that was not true, and the CBO told Congress that it was not true. What was common sense is coming to fruition now. The law has given us a billion-dollar new bureaucracy, and it's fueling ever-increasing health care and premium costs. In this case, Madam Chairman, this amendment is not needed because we have seen that real medical liability reform can and will reduce costs. It will stop the vicious cycle of frivolous lawsuits and defensive medicine. It will make our health care system more efficient and actually reduce unnecessary spending in the health care system, another thing the health care law failed to do. We do not need this amendment. With that, Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I respect my colleague from Oregon, and I know she is well meaning and very thoughtful, but I must oppose her amendment. At this time, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I thank the majority leader for allowing me this opportunity to take the leadership hour this evening and, quite honestly, the opportunity to respond to my colleague, Representative Frank Pallone, who is a colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee--in fact, the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee--as he talked about the benefits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And he spent the last 35, 40 minutes talking about what a great piece of legislation that was and about all of the wonderful things that it has already done. Well, I'm going to take my leadership time, Mr. Speaker, to give the other side of this viewpoint and to suggest that this is not a good bill, that this is not helpful. Certainly my colleagues on the Democratic side, when they were in the majority--and 2 years ago this coming Friday they passed into law the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare-- they felt like this was the best thing since sliced bread, like this was the solution to all of our problems. Yet we spent 2 years cramming that bill--literally cramming that piece of legislation, all 2,811 pages of it, down the throats of the American people when our unemployment rate was 9.5 percent, when 15 million Americans were out of work and another 15 million were underemployed. This was our number one priority, national health insurance, a complete government takeover of one-sixth of our economy? This is what the Democratic majority in the 109th, 110th Congresses have forced upon the American people. The gentleman from New Jersey can talk about all the wonderful things that have occurred since the passage of ObamaCare. But let me just point out some truths that, Mr. Speaker, don't need any adjectives to explain. The truth is, there were never 47 million people in this country who could not afford health insurance. There may have been 47 million who didn't have health insurance. But how many million people of that 47 million estimate were making more than $50,000 a year? Mr. Speaker, how many were making more than $75,000 a year? And how many of the 47 million uninsured were in this country illegally? How many were eligible for one of our safety-net programs, like Medicaid or the SCHIP program for their children, in their respective States? And when you crunch all of those numbers, there may have been and may be 15 million people in this country who do not have health insurance because they can't afford it or because they don't want it. They would rather pay as they go. Now, I'm not going to stand here and suggest--particularly as a physician Member--that that's a wise thing to do. The expression is ``to go bare'' in regard to health insurance coverage. I wouldn't recommend that. But certainly as an individual in this country, the land of the free, we have the constitutional right to make that decision for ourselves and our families. And what the Democratic majority did with ObamaCare, the way they made it work, when you cut right to the chase, so they could cover people with preexisting conditions, whether they were nearly seniors or children, to eliminate yearly or lifetime caps, to provide preventive health services that didn't previously exist, the way they did that, colleagues--and you know this--they cut $550 billion out of the Medicare program. They virtually gutted Medicare Advantage. Twenty percent of seniors select Medicare Advantage. The title, Mr. Speaker, speaks for itself. It's an advantage because that program covers many of these preventive services that the gentleman from New Jersey was talking about that are now available under ObamaCare. They were available under Medicare Advantage, but now that program has been gutted. It's been cut 14 percent per year over a 10-year period of time. So you rob from Peter to pay Paul. And who is Paul? Paul is this 15 million to 20 million that are left in that group who have no insurance, many of whom who don't want it. And now we have created a whole new entitlement program that we cannot afford when 15 million people are out of work and the unemployment rate, Mr. Speaker, for--what is it--38 straight months now has been above 8 percent. That, despite the fact that the stimulus bill and its $875 billion on shovel-ready projects that promised--that promised when the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent that this would solve the problem, and it would not go above 8 percent. It hasn't been below 8 percent since we've spent the money. So I say to the gentleman from New Jersey and my Democratic colleagues in this Chamber, you fiddled for 2 years; you fiddled while Rome was burning. And so, yes, now you can beat the drum and celebrate the 2-year anniversary of ObamaCare while 60 percent of this country continues to tell you they hate it. They hate it. And they're going to tell you that loud and clear, as they did 2 years ago. They're going to tell you that loud and clear November 6, 2012. I take no pleasure in that. I enjoy being in the majority. Mr. Speaker enjoys being in the majority. But our responsibility is to the American people, especially to our seniors--our moms and dads--and those folks who are struggling, who are on a fixed income. But to suggest that we're helping them when we cut their program $550 billion, to suggest that closing the doughnut hole is a good thing and lowers the cost of health care and lowers the cost of prescription drugs, no, it doesn't. Because what this Federal Government, what Uncle is doing is forcing the pharmaceutical industry to pay for that doughnut hole, and to pay for it with brand drugs when prior to ObamaCare we were filling that doughnut hole with generics. And so what is going to happen? This pharmaceutical industry, it's whack-a-mole. You squeeze that balloon, it's going to bulge out on another side. And it's going to bulge out when they raise the premiums for prescription drug coverage for everybody else. The gentleman talked about these wonderful exchanges that are going to be set up for the people who don't have health insurance. I don't object, Mr. Speaker, to the idea of setting up State exchanges. That's an idea that's been around for a long time. It didn't just originate with ObamaCare. But when you hear my good friend from New Jersey, the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce--and he certainly should know of what he says--that in these exchanges people are going to get a subsidy, in other words, that's a government handout. They're going to get a check if they make $75,000 to $80,000 a year. You heard him say it. Colleagues, you heard him say it. Now, I would like to ask the 700,000 people in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia what they think of $70,000, $75,000, $80,000 a year and getting a government handout, a subsidy. My people, the people I represent, would feel wealthy if they made $75,000 a year, and they would not be expecting a government handout. What this administration has done with this piece of legislation--Mr. Pallone criticized the Republican idea in the Republican budget of block-granting the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program, colleagues, it's been around since 1965. It's a good program. It's shared between the Federal Government and the States. But under ObamaCare, States are told that they cannot be innovative in regard to designing a Medicaid program that best fits the needs of the citizens of their State. It's called maintenance of effort. ObamaCare says to the Governors of the respective States: You can't do anything. You can't make any changes whatsoever in your Medicaid program. You can't check on eligibility. You can't check to make sure that an individual that applies is in this country legally. You can't drug-test these individuals. You can't do anything to make sure that that program for your State is going to those who need it, who are eligible for it, and to who deserve it, because of this maintenance of effort restriction under ObamaCare. Not only do we put handcuffs on the chief executives of our States, but we also mandate that they now cover under the Medicaid program people up to 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. Prior law, the requirement was 100 percent. Yes, some States went above that when times were good, when unemployment was 6 percent instead of 9.5 percent, as it is in my current great State of Georgia. But States can't afford to do that. But the Federal Government comes along and says, because of ObamaCare, we're going to force you to stay where you are. You can make no changes. You cannot go down to 115 percent or 100 percent. Oh, no. You have to stay at 133 percent. And we are looking at an additional cost to the States over the next 10 years of $15 billion. That's why this is part of the lawsuit that the Supreme Court will hear next week in the 6 hours of testimony--that and this individual mandate in ObamaCare that forces individuals to engage in commerce, the Federal Government regulating commerce as provided for in article 1, section 8, clause 3 of our great Constitution. Oh, no. This says whether you are engaging in commerce or not, Mr. Speaker, you have to participate. I know my colleagues have heard the expression and the comments from me and others, What's next? Everybody has to eat broccoli? It's absolutely absurd. It's patently absurd for the Federal Government to tell people they have to engage in commerce. We understand the Constitution and the right constitutionally to regulate existing commerce between States, but not to force people. So as I have these moments tonight to talk about as a counterpoint to Mr. Pallone in regard to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Mr. Speaker, it could not be more unaffordable. The CBO just came out with a new score. Originally, 2 years ago, that score was something like $950 billion and, according to smoke-and-mirror accounting, completely paid for. Now the cost--the adjusted cost--is about twice that. It's about twice that. So it's not the Affordable Care Act but the Patently Un-Affordable Care Act. For my colleague to criticize the Republican majority for coming forward with a budget that includes a plan to save Medicare and Medicaid, legacy programs, programs that our seniors and our poor are so dependent on, for us to have a plan to save that and for the gentleman from the other side of the aisle to criticize that, I would ask him if he were still in the Chamber, and I ask all of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle: What is your plan? What is your plan to save the Medicaid program? What is your plan to save the Medicare program? How many different studies do we need from how many different commissions over how many years before we accept the plain, hard, cold truth that the hospital trust fund and Medicare program will be insolvent at the very latest by the year 2024 and by the earliest at the year 2016 as estimated by the Medicare actuaries? Nobody denies that. But what are my Democratic friends doing about it? Mr. Speaker, they're doing two things. They're whistling past the graveyard and they're enacting IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Colleagues, you've heard it all evening as we've discussed the repeal of IPAB and H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act. IPAB is 15 unelected bureaucrats-- unelected but appointed by the President, this President--at a salary of $176,000 a year for a 6-year term, renewable for another 6. So we're stuck with them for 12 years and that fat salary and benefit package so they can say, We're going to save Medicare by cutting reimbursement to health care providers and prescription drug companies. We can't change the age of Medicare eligibility. We can't increase the annual deductible or copay. No, we can't do anything, any of those things. We can only cut provider reimbursement. Oh, but there's no rationing. It says there in that section regarding IPAB that no rationing will occur. Well, give me a break. If you cut reimbursement to providers and they stop providing the care, then the senior does not get that knee replacement and does not get that stent put in. You can spell it any way you want to, but, Mr. Speaker, that's rationing. That's rationing. And the American people don't want that. Our seniors don't want that. That's no compassion. You can provide all these preventive services you want to that Mr. Pallone was speaking about, and that's fine if you can afford to do it. But to suggest that that saves money, it might save an individual life, and that's a wonderful thing, but don't stand up here and tell me and tell my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that preventive services save money. No economist, no health economist would agree with that. It doesn't save money. It costs money. And every time you add another ``free'' preventive service to a program, it's going to increase the health insurance premiums for everybody else. These are called mandates. The gentleman from New Jersey talked about direct access without prior approval, whether it's to see your OB GYN doctor, your dermatologist, or your general surgeon without having to go through a gatekeeper. I understand that. I practiced medicine 31 years. I think my colleagues know that. I understand that. But these things definitely cost money. They don't save money. I think it's important for people to understand that. He talked about the wonderful things that have already occurred under ObamaCare, allowing adult children--I realize that's a bit of an oxymoron, but I've got four of those oxymorons--to allow adult children to stay on their parents' health insurance policy until they're 26 years old without regard to whether or not they're students. Now, the prior policy of most health insurance companies, if you were over 21 years old, maybe in the third or fourth year of college, then you were no longer eligible to be covered under your parents' health insurance policy. The expectation, of course, is that you would have a job. Well, the reason it's so important now to have them covered up to age 26 on their parents' health insurance policy is because they have no jobs. And that's the thing that this administration and this--now, at least in the House of Representatives--Democratic minority, they just don't seem to understand that what the American people care about first and foremost is a job. They want health insurance, of course they do. If they have to, they'll pay for it out of their own pocket. But they've got to have a job first. They've got to put food on the table. They've got to put clothing on the backs of their children. They have to have the pride, dignity, and respect of having a job. As we go into these elections this fall, and all 435 of us in this body and 100--well, in fact, I guess it's one-third of the other body stand for reelection and we elect a 45th--and, indeed, I think we will elect a 45th and not reelect the 44th--President of the United States, it's going to be based on jobs and the economy. That's the thing that this President, since he took office in January of 2009, has just totally missed the point of. And really, it started in January of 2007 with the Democratic majority in this Chamber when we spent another 2 years wasting time, fiddling while Rome was burning, trying to force and cram down the throats of the American people this cap-and-trade regime which would have cost every family $2,500 a year in increased utility costs. Thank goodness the other body stopped that, because the American people didn't want it. And they don't want national health care. That's why we voted in this body, H.R. 2, to repeal ObamaCare. And that repeal passed in the House of Representatives. We finally had a vote in the Senate. We couldn't get them to pass a budget. They haven't done that in 3 years. But after about a year and a half, we finally got them to vote on repeal of ObamaCare. The Democratic majority rejected that. So, Mr. Speaker, now we're dealing with plan B, and plan B is to chip away at the most egregious aspects of ObamaCare. It would be a mistake for us to assume the Supreme Court will strike down that individual mandate and will strike down that Medicaid expansion, that unfunded mandate, a $12 billion burden placed on the budgets of our respective States. I think they will strike it down, but I'm not going to stand here in this Chamber holding my breath waiting for that to happen. That would be irresponsible. That would not be representing the people of the 11th of Georgia the way they deserve to be represented. So, we are going to fight. That's what this is all about today and the vote tomorrow in regard to repealing IPAB, this Independent Payment Advisory Board that literally takes legislative responsibility away from the Congress. Talk about unconstitutional; clearly, that is unconstitutional. We're going to vote it down tomorrow. And we're going to send that to the Senate, and I expect Harry Reid and the Democratic majority to do the responsible thing. They don't like it either. They don't like it either. Let's don't make an election issue out of it. Let's just do the right thing for the American people. Mr. Speaker, it's been a long day. We have had a lot of discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives, a lot of eloquence on both sides of the aisle. I feel very strongly that we should respect one another, and I think we do. This is not personal, but when you feel that you have the right idea, it's your responsibility to stand strong, not to pander to anybody, but to stand strong and do the right thing, do the right thing for the American people. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, you will notice that Members from Georgia on both sides of the aisle have taken the opportunity this morning during Special Orders time to recognize Monica Kaufman. We just heard from our colleague, Representative David Scott. I want to commend my friend David Scott for organizing this tribute on behalf of one great lady. I rise today, as well, to recognize Monica Kaufman for her historic and outstanding achievements in broadcast journalism. Atlanta is sad to see her resigning from WSB; but we are very, very proud of her. For the past 37 years, she has brought Atlanta the news, from her coverage of the 1996 Olympics, to her famous ``Monica Kaufman's Closeups'' of world leaders and celebrities,'' to her award-winning work on issues such as the Holocaust and domestic abuse. As the first woman and African American news anchor in Atlanta, Ms. Kaufman broke both race and gender barriers. She has won more than 30 Southern and local Southern Regional Emmy Awards for talent, reporting, and close-up interviews. Ms. Kaufman has already been named University of Georgia's Broadcaster of the Year in 2001 and the Georgia's Association of Broadcaster of the Year in 2001 and the Georgia Association of Broadcasters 1992 Citizens Broadcaster. Madam Speaker, I will always remember, however, one evening in July 2002--it was actually November of 2002--when I was first running for Congress. That election night was a very, very close race. It went deep in the night; and finally, at about 11 o'clock, it was news time at WSB. Sure enough, I had to go downstairs and get ready to be interviewed by Monica Kaufman in regard to my race for Congress. At this point, we were behind. All counties except one had reported, and I was behind. Monica was very sweet and kind to me. She could tell that I was a little nervous and worried and scared. She said, Have you picked up your phone yet to congratulate your opponent on your victory? I said, Monica, I won't do that until the last vote is counted. Shortly after that, I got a phone call telling me congratulations. Finally, those precincts came in, and Dr. Gingrey, from the 11th District in Georgia, was elected. I always remember Monica Kaufman from that night. I ask Members to recognize the accomplishments of the great Monica Kaufman.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And, of course, I stand in strong support of H.R. 5, the PATH Act, having authored half of the legislation, that is, the HEALTH Act, the medical liability reform act. But I'm also strongly in favor of repeal of IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board created under ObamaCare. We know and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of them, know that this is the most egregious part of this 2,700-page piece of legislation, which is now the law of the land. But what it is, Mr. Chairman, IPAB, is their way of saving Medicare. I'll ask them time after time: What is your plan to save Medicare? They have no answers. All they want to do is continue to criticize our side of the aisle when we have meaningful, thoughtful plans to save and protect and strengthen, not just for these current recipients under the Medicare program, those who are seniors, those who are disabled, but also our children and our grandchildren. What do we get from this side of the aisle, from the Democratic side? We get IPAB. The language says no rationing, yet the provisions call for cutting reimbursements to providers; and eventually, without question, just as it has in Canada and the UK, Mr. Chairman, that leads to the denial of care. If that's not rationing, I don't know what it is. Let me, in the remaining part of my time, speak a little bit in regard to H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act, the medical liability reform act. The gentleman from Iowa, the trial attorney, was just up here trying to imply that we would take away a person's right to a redress of their grievances if they had been injured by a medical provider or a health care facility because of practice below the standard of care.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. And I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Iowa knows, in fact, that that is absolutely not true. What we do in this HEALTH Act is limit the awards for so-called pain and suffering at $250,000. And, Mr. Chairman, indeed, a number of States, after California enacted this law 35 years ago--Texas, Florida, my own State of Georgia--have enacted caps higher than that, and, no doubt, other States will do so in the future, because this bill specifically says--and it's called the flex caps--that if a State wants to enact a limit on noneconomics of $1 million and have it applicable to multiple defendants, they can do that. They have the right to do that. And in regard to the injury to a patient, there are no caps whatsoever. There are still suits that are awarded to injured patients that are in the millions of dollars. So the gentleman from Iowa was totally disingenuous in what he was trying to explain--a very smooth talking, very convincing lawyer. That's what we expect. But we want to end frivolous lawsuits so that those who are truly injured get their day in court, and that's what this bill does.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, and he did say that. He said it was his understanding. He didn't say it was a matter of fact. I appreciate that comment. But another thing, Mr. Chairman, that I want to address, he named names. I think the lady's name was Ms. Palmer of Marietta, Georgia. I live in Marietta, Georgia, and have for the last 36 years. I represent Marietta, Georgia, in the 11th Congressional District and have for the last 9\1/2\ years. The description of this unfortunate soul's injuries and the things that happened to her, the broken bones, the collapsed lung, the lack of blood flow to the extremities because of an improper placement of an intravenous line, maybe instead of in a vein in an artery, that resulted in amputations of her upper extremities. When the general public hears stuff like that, Mr. Chairman, they're horrified. To think that we on this side of the aisle with H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act, which is part of the PATH Act that we are discussing on the floor today, to suggest that a person that suffers like that could only recover $250,000 in non-compensatory pain and suffering is absolutely untrue. The gentleman, my friend from DeKalb, is an attorney. He knows the legal system. He's been in the courtroom. I'm not sure whether he's tried on the side of the plaintiff or the defense in regard to medical malpractice cases, but he clearly knows the difference in noneconomic pain and suffering in regard to this particular bill, and, on the other hand, recovery for severe losses, medical compensation, loss of wages, loss of extremities, what this poor soul suffered. Let me just read, Mr. Chairman, this comment: Nothing in the HEALTH Act denies injured plaintiffs the ability to obtain adequate redress, including compensation for 100 percent of their economic loss. Essentially, anything to which a receipt can be attached. Believe me, the plaintiff's attorney will attach every receipt, including the medical costs, the cost of pain relief medication, their loss of wages, their future lost wages, rehabilitation costs, and any other economic out-of-pocket loss suffered as a result of a health care injury. Economic damages include anything whose value can be quantified, including lost wages, home services, au pair, companion to go shopping, medical costs, rehabilitation of a home, access for someone who has an incapacity, an inability to access a normal home. So, the gentleman, just like the gentleman from Iowa, the plaintiff's attorney that spoke on the floor earlier in regard to misleading statements, to suggest that in this legislation we would take away the ability of a person like Ms. Palmer of Marietta, Georgia, for a full and complete redress of grievances if a medical practitioner or a facility has performed below the standard of care for that local community--my colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished chairman, gave me some statistics in regard to some of the economic losses that people have incurred and judgments that have been awarded by a jury of their peers. Listen to this, Mr. Chairman. In August of 2010, Contra Costa County, a judgment for $5,500,000. These are California cases, by the way, Mr. Chairman. It's California law that H.R. 5 is based on. MICRA passed back in 1975. But these are cases in 2010. This one in February 2010, Riverside County, $16,500,000; November, 2009, Los Angeles County, $5 million; October, 2009, Sacramento County, $5,750,000. I will go down to the last one, although there are several others on the list. July, 2007, Los Angeles County, an award of $96,400,000. This, Mr. Chairman, is in 2007. MICRA was passed in 1975. This case in 2007, this plaintiff may have been awarded $250,000 noneconomic because there was a cap. But the cap is there not to deny them their day in court, their ability to be judged by a jury of their peers and a decision made in regard to just compensation. There are 21 members of the House GOP Doctors Caucus. It includes 16 physicians, a psychologist, several dentists, several registered nurses. I'll guarantee you, Mr. Chairman, in every one of these cases I mentioned coming out of California, we would be sitting there fighting for those plaintiffs. Maybe even a witness for the plaintiff, for Mrs. Palmer, to say the sky is the limit, and, Mr. Plaintiff's Attorney, you tack on every economic cost that you can dream up, and we'll vote in favor of it. But what we are opposed to, Mr. Chairman, is this opportunity for people to come in to court and clog up the court system and crowd out Mrs. Palmer and maybe many of these cases from California with frivolous lawsuits where there is no justification for the claim, where people are just hoping with a lottery mentality that some sympathetic jury will just simply say, Oh, gosh, we know there's no damage here. But after all, the doctor has $10 million worth of insurance. It's not coming out of his pocket. Let's award the plaintiff $6 million or $8 million worth of noneconomic pain and suffering--if you want to call it that--in damages. That's the thing that's got to stop. That's what's causing the price of health care to rise astronomically. That's why doctors are ordering all of these unnecessary tests and practicing defensive medicine. Every time a patient comes to the emergency room with a headache, even though the doctor is skilled in physical diagnosis, in taking a history, and can examine that patient and look in their eyes, making sure there is no bulge of the pupils or the optic discs, they know that patient has a tension headache. They know it's perfectly safe to send him or her home with a prescription to return in 24 hours. But, no, because of these frivolous lawsuits, they're going to order a CAT scan that costs $1,500. You multiple that time and time and time again, that's what this is all about. That's the problem we're trying to solve. For my friend from DeKalb--and he is my great friend--or my friend from Iowa or, indeed, the former Speaker, the minority leader, Ms. Pelosi, to come to the floor and very eloquently--and she is eloquent and speaks with a lot of passion, great ability, a great communicator-- but to mislead is downright wrong. The truth needs no adjectives, Mr. Chairman. The truth is what is in the PATH Act, H.R. 5. And I say to my colleagues: We need to pass this and do this in a bipartisan way and not worry here about what's going to happen in the Senate. Let's do the right thing in the House of Representatives, and let's do the people's work.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chairman, as a physician Member and coauthor of the bill, I am truly honored that Chairman Pitts is allowing me to close the debate on H.R. 5, the PATH Act--appropriately named. For meaningful medical liability reform and the elimination of IPAB together will put Medicare in specific, and health care in general, back on the right path: a path to fiscal solvency for one- sixth of our economy; a path to compassionate, cost effective, efficient, and timely health care for all who call this great country home; a path to fairness in our court systems so that those injured by malpractice get their day before a jury of their peers and they are justly compensated, not crowded out by the growing problem of frivolous claims and out-of-control legal fees; a path to a bipartisan and a bicameral solution to one of the most pressing issues that this Nation will ever again face, that is, to save Medicare for our current seniors and strengthen it for all future generations. Let's get started right now. Our country cannot wait any longer. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5, the right PATH Act.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I will be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding to me and the opportunity to follow directly my colleague from Georgia on the other side of the aisle. A number of things were said. I feel grateful to have the opportunity to address those. One of the comments that the gentleman made, the gentleman is my good friend, and he would agree with that. But in regard to this emergency caucus meeting with the Tea Party Caucus on the Republican side with our majority leader, Eric Cantor, I am an original member of the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives. If there had been any emergency-called meeting, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that I would have been right there with Michele Bachmann and Steve King and others, the 20 of us that were original members of the House GOP Tea Party Caucus. There was no such meeting. Let me refute that statement, although I greatly respect my friend from Georgia, from DeKalb.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is his time, and I appreciate him yielding. It gives me an opportunity to explain in regard to joint and several liability. Mr. Chairman, it's important for our colleagues on the House floor and anyone within shouting distance to understand what we're talking about in regard to joint and several liability. Under current law, anyone who is named as a defendant in a medical malpractice suit is liable for whatever judgment is rendered. It matters not how much they participate in the case. Let me give my good friend from Michigan, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, an example. Of course he knows this. Let's say it's an OB/GYN case and the surgeon who has done a hysterectomy on Friday is going to church on Sunday morning and asks his colleague to stop by and see the patient and to tell her that he'll be around that afternoon to check on her. The doctor says, sure, I'll be glad to. He peeks his head in the door and Mrs. Jones said, I'm fine. Okay. Your doctor will be around this afternoon to check on you. Things go to heck in a hand basket. The operating physician maybe has practiced below the standard of care. But that doctor that covered, that peeked in the door, that really had nothing to do with the case, surely, as Mr. Conyers knows, will be named in the lawsuit. And if he or she happens to have the deepest pockets under the current law, they could be liable for the entire judgment; whereas the doctor who practiced below the standard of care, who has a shallow pocket, would get off scot-free. I yield back to my friend, and I thank you for the opportunity.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. The answer is ``yes.''

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Chairman Smith yielding to me. And, of course, with great hesitation do I rise, because the gentlewoman who just spoke was recently rated one of the most eloquent, if not the most eloquent, Members of this body. But even though she is eloquent, with all due respect, I think she is wrong. And with regard to the issue of the Commerce Clause and the issue of the Affordable Care Act, PPACA, and as is sometimes referred to, and not really pejoratively--if successful, it will be his legacy-- ObamaCare. This bill, Mr. Chairman, was created by forcing individuals to engage in commerce; that is, to purchase health insurance, under the penalty or a tax--I'm not sure from day to day how they're going to describe it, but without question that's not constitutional. And I expect maybe it will be a 5 4 decision in June of the Supreme Court, but maybe 9 0, because that is clearly unconstitutional. It is not applicable under the Commerce Clause to force people to engage in commerce. The Constitution says to regulate interstate commerce. Of course, that is very much applicable in H.R. 5, in the Medical Liability Reform Act. Because when you have a situation in health care where there is no provision for certain medical specialties in a high- risk area like neurosurgery, obstetrics and gynecology, cardiovascular surgery, where babies have to be delivered beside the road.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. But clearly the gentlelady from Texas--and I think she knows this. Texas has enacted tort reform. They have caps that are different in fact than originally existed in California 35 years ago. The result in Texas, if all of my colleagues from Texas on this side of the aisle are truthful with me, is that the problem in Texas has stabilized. Physicians are coming back to Texas. There's no shortage of specialists because of the law that was passed in Texas. And I want to point out to the gentlewoman, too, that in this bill there is a provision called flexi-caps that basically says whatever a State does preempts Federal law in regard to caps on noneconomic, as well as contingency fees for plaintiffs' attorneys, or any other provision of the law. State law prevails if they address that either before this bill is passed or after the bill is passed.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. The gentlelady is eloquent but she's wrong on this issue, and I will yield to her.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Smith for yielding to me. As good a communicator as the gentlewoman from California is, I would be quick to state that she is not the Great Communicator. The Great Communicator, of course, was President Ronald Reagan. The gentlewoman from California talked about comments that were made on my side of the aisle, members of the Judiciary Committee, and named a couple of Members on my side of the aisle that were concerned about federalism and the 10th Amendment and states' rights. I just want to remind her that, at least from our perspective--and the gentlewoman may not agree with this at all--but from our perspective on this side of the aisle, the Great Communicator was President Ronald Reagan. In a speech in 1986 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, after a commission had reported to him on this issue of medical liability reform and the need for same, the President very clearly outlined almost the identical provisions that are part of MICRA, the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, that was passed in his State that he governed for 8 years, the great State of California. So, again, the gentlelady makes her points well; but, quite honestly, I think there's a bit of embellishment on their side of the aisle. Who do you trust? The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle) just spoke moments ago, Mr. Chairman, about who do we trust. Well, right above you, as you sit there, first of all, ``In God We Trust.'' In mom and dad we trust. In Dr. Bailey, Augusta, Georgia, we trust. In uncle we trust, but that's way down the line, way down the line. I think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that Big Government should control everything, that they should make the decisions. That's where ObamaCare came from. To do it, they had to proffer a 2,800-page bill that is clearly unconstitutional. H.R. 5 is not unconstitutional. You look at article I, section 8, clause 3, the Commerce Clause, and clearly it's constitutional. Requiring someone, forcing someone to engage in commerce, indeed, to purchase health insurance under the penalty of a tax is unconstitutional, and that will be determined by the Supreme Court.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Will the ranking member yield?

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I appreciate very much you yielding to me for that, because clarification needs to be made. You're suggesting that what I said was there would be a limitation of $250,000 because of the elimination of joint and several liability. That's not true at all. Whatever the judgment is, the $250,000 in noneconomic, the $10 million in economic, would be apportioned to the defendants in proportion to their liability. That's what the elimination of joint and several liability means, eliminating this deep-pocket mentality of plaintiff's attorneys.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, you've heard on our side of the aisle this morning a number of Members talk about saving Medicare and protecting our precious seniors. What we're wanting to save them from is the most egregious aspect of ObamaCare, and that's called the IPAB law, which is the 15-member bureaucrat agency that's going to actually come between a doctor and his or her patient and interfere with that sacrosanct doctor-patient relationship and make decisions to cut and slash their Medicare opportunity to see their doctors. This is not the way to fix Medicare, Mr. Speaker. We know how to fix Medicare, and we will talk about that in our budget this year as we did last year, but we must strike down this egregious section of this 2,700-page bill. And we will do that this week.