Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona and welcome him, of course, to the House GOP Doctors Caucus. Our final speaker, and I want to yield time to a cardiothoracic surgeon, Mr. Speaker, from Indiana, a new member, Dr. Larry Bucshon, and I think Dr. Bucshon was here on the floor a little earlier when the Democratic 30 minutes was controlled by the gentleman from Minnesota, and he made some remarks against the fact that we were successful in repealing ObamaCare. And I think Dr. Bucshon would like to comment on some of those points that were made. At this time, I proudly yield to our new member, Dr. Larry Bucshon.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Before I yield again to my cochair, Dr. Murphy, I want to make a few comments in regard to some of the things that were said on the Democratic side of the aisle just within the last 30 minutes. The gentleman that spoke is a fine, fine Member, has a great heart and a lot of compassion and is a friend of mine and I don't refute him in any way of being strident or any animosity toward him, but the gentleman made a comment about why not give the law a chance, I think is sort of the way it was put, Mr. Speaker. The Republican majority, the new Republican majority wanted to come along with H.R. 2 and repeal the bill, didn't even want to give it a chance to see how well it might work. Mr. Speaker, I would just say on a point like that, we on this floor right now on the Republican side of the aisle, we doctors know that when you discover a cancer, you don't give it a chance to grow. You don't give it a chance to metastasize. You cut that sucker out and you get rid of it lock, stock and barrel. As our colleague from Iowa, Steve King, said the other day, you pull it out by the roots. I think, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker, John Boehner, said the same thing. We feel very strongly that today we did the right thing. I have a number of other charts here that my colleagues might want to reference in regard to specifics about what we feel about this bill and why we needed to repeal it and basically start over. I will finally quickly say that I heard the other side talk about statistics, saying that only 18 percent of people wanted the bill completely repealed. That is not an accurate statistic. Eighteen percent wanted to leave it like it is. Fully 75 percent in the latest Rasmussen poll either wanted it to be repealed or repealed and replaced. Or if not repealed, significantly altered. And, of course, that is what we are about as we go forward. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Dr. Murphy).

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving us the time and, in fact, we are very appreciative on our side of the aisle of having this opportunity this evening, Mr. Speaker, on, really, a historic day in which we finally delivered to the American people a promise that has been made over a year ago, that should this bill, this comprehensive health care reform bill sometimes referred to as ObamaCare but more formally known as Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, should this legislation pass, that if we had the opportunity to take control of this House of Representatives to get that gavel away from former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the prior Democratic majority, that our first and number one priority on behalf of the American people would be to repeal this mistaken bill. Today, Mr. Speaker, is the day that that happened and certainly I am extremely grateful, as cochairman along with my colleague, Tim Murphy from the great State of Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy and I cochair the House GOP Doctors Caucus. Mr. Speaker, we grew our strength in this election, November 2. We had about 11 Members in their caucus, 11 very active hard-working Members who practiced medicine in one form or another, one specialty or another for many, many years. In fact, I think, Mr. Speaker, one time we calculated the number of years that we have actually practiced medicine, and it was something like 350 years of clinical practice. As you notice, Mr. Speaker, there is a little bit of a grayness around the temple of some of us. But we are very thankful for this election and the American people giving the Republican Party the opportunity to right this wrong and to bring seven additional Members, seven additional health care practitioners, again, some of them have been in practice many years, dentists, doctors, even some associate members of our group, some registered nurses to be part of this new majority. As we voted today on H.R. 2, the repeal bill of ObamaCare, I can assure you that 100 percent of us, in fact, 100 percent of Republicans, all 242 on our side of the aisle, plus, I think, three or four Democrats in a bipartisan way, joined with us in voting to repeal this bill. I realized this evening, Mr. Speaker, that our time is limited. I am very pleased that some members of the House GOP Doctors Caucus are with us. I would first like to take the opportunity to yield to my cochairman, Dr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania. Dr. Murphy.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia from the 10th Congressional District. The gentleman makes some great points. And colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I would ask you to look at the posters that we have here because what Dr. Murphy, Mr. Speaker, and Dr. Broun are talking about is really the plan. And the plan is not a plan, but it is a series of plans, if you will. It's a plan A, it's a plan B, and it's a plan C. And of course today, the repeal as depicted on this very first and second poster was at least a House completion of plan A, and that is repeal of ObamaCare as this poster depicts. Priority number one, we feel very strongly that that's what we need to do, and that's what we did in this House today. As Dr. Broun was talking about, Republican priority number two is not only to repeal it, but to replace it, because every one of us, particularly the members of the House GOP Doctors Caucus that are on the floor this evening, understand that nothing is perfect. And as Dr. Broun and others have said, we tried to bring forth legislation during the 111th Congress. We gave a copy of ``Better Solutions'' to the President, Mr. Speaker. Pages 8 and 9 were all about our plans and other options other than a government takeover, lock, stock and barrel, of the health care system. The President said, well, I got it, I read it, and then went on to say, they have no ideas, they won't bring me any ideas, if they only would. So priority number two, of course, replace ObamaCare with reforms that empower patients and protect our economy. And then, of course, as I say, Republican priority number three in this poster, repeal and defund provisions of ObamaCare until full repeal is successful if we're not able to get the Senate and the President to go along with us in regard to this full repeal. If they don't do it, quite honestly, they are not listening, Mr. Speaker, to the American people. They do that at their own peril. I would yield back to the gentleman from Georgia for 5 seconds.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank my colleague from California for yielding time. I rise in strong support of this resolution. First and foremost, I would like to extend my prayers and wishes, as well as those of my constituents in northwest Georgia, to my colleague Representative Gabrielle Giffords, her family and staff, and to all the other victims of the shooting. What took place was an unspeakable tragedy, and it has absolutely no place in our society. Madam Speaker, on Saturday morning, Ms. Giffords was hosting an event fundamental to our duties as Members of Congress--meeting with and listening to our constituents so that we can best represent them in Washington. It is painfully sad and sobering that, in the process of doing her job, Gabby was brutally attacked. I had the pleasure of serving with Gabrielle on both the House Armed Services Committee and the Science and Technology Committee during the 110th Congress. I have always known her to be a thoughtful legislator and a dedicated public servant and have always appreciated her cheerful disposition. Throughout her tenure in Congress, Representative Giffords has distinguished herself as one of the Members of this body who works well with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. My prayers continue to be with her and her family, and I look forward to the day when she walks back onto this House floor. Madam Speaker, we must also not forget the other individuals who were victims of Saturday's attack. One of the casualties was 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green, who was born on September 11, 2001, and was recently elected to serve on her school's student council. Driven by her interest in politics, she had gone to Gabby's event last Saturday to learn more about our Federal Government. The tragedy of her death reminds us all of the fragile nature of life and what it means to be a public servant. Additionally, we all know the critical role that our staff members play in helping us carry out our duties and better serve our constituents. Like us, members of our staffs are dedicated public servants. That is why it is truly heartbreaking that a member of Ms. Giffords' district staff, Gabe Zimmerman, lost his life in this senseless attack while two other members of her Arizona-based staff were injured. In the midst of one of the darkest hours of our country in recent memory, let us also thank those whose courage and bravery, whether in helping take down the gunman or in assisting in providing care for the injured, deserve recognition. We thank them for their valor. Madam Speaker, during times of tragedy, we depend on steady leadership to guide us through our grief. I commend the leadership of both parties for remembering that there is much more that unites us than divides us. Again, I pray for the recovery of our colleague, Ms. Giffords, and for all of the victims of the Tucson shooting.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of arguments on the other side of the aisle in regard to the $230 billion cost, and on our side of the aisle, of course, only in America can something actually cost $1.15 trillion and eliminating it then all of a sudden costs $230 billion. But, yes, Ms. Slaughter, only in America, only in this Congress, numbers do lie. Let me just say that what we have been talking about on this side of the aisle, of course, is the voice of the American people. You know, it was about 3,000 years ago that a little shepherd boy walked into that valley of death looking up at all of those Philistines and that 9-foot giant Goliath from Gath. He had that coat of mail, he had the sword, he had the shield, he had the javelin. And what did little David have? He had a little pouch and a handful of stones. But he hit that giant right between the eyes, brought him to his knees, and then cut off the head of the snake. That pouch and those little pebbles represent the voice of the American people. That is what we have on this side of the aisle. That is why we are going to pass H. Res. 9 and we are going to pass H.R. 2 next week, and we are going to deliver our promise to the American people to eliminate, to repeal ObamaCare. The American people spoke loudly. They don't like this bill. The Democratic majority in the Senate and the President have one last chance to make amends. I think they will do it.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri yielding, and I know that when he was referring to my medical expertise in regard to knowing that subject inside and out, no pun was intended when he mentioned that. I do know a lot more about health care, probably, than I do about government spending, but one thing's for sure, Madam Speaker, as the gentleman pointed out: We are spending way too much money. And I think the figures today, this year, last year, we spent a third more than we took in. I mean, you know, we have a revenue stream from taxation of the American people, and yet we went beyond that by $1 trillion of borrowed money; and, of course, of the nondomestic creditors, the largest one is China. They hold a lot of our debt. They happen to be, now, the second largest economy in the world at $9 trillion GDP. We had about a $15 trillion GDP, but the thing that is so scary and frightening about that is we owe $14 trillion. So our debt to GDP ratio is approaching 100 percent. So, you know, when we stand up, Madam Speaker, as we're doing right now and talk about this issue, we're almost in panic, and we should be because we're right on the precipice, right on the edge of becoming part of the PIGS acronym--Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain. And, you know, we point the finger at them. But goodness gracious, it's like the Bible scripture that I'm sure the Representative from Missouri probably knows by heart. But it goes something like, If you've got a plank in your own eye, you shouldn't be pointing out the speck in somebody else's. We've got a plank in our own eye. And this is why in this 112th Congress, we have a huge challenge, don't we, my colleagues? We have a huge challenge. We're up to it. We're up to it, and I hope that we are going to be up to it on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, reclaiming the time that the gentleman yielded to me, Madam Speaker. Absolutely. The gentleman from Washington, our esteemed colleague, a physician, Mr. McDermott was on the floor a little earlier talking about, well, what we were trying to do in repealing ObamaCare, or the formal recognition of that bill, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. That's a lot easier, socialized medicine, Madam Speaker; but that's essentially what it is. That is essentially what the former majority party was pushing towards. But the gentleman who spoke said, Well, it's a stunt. These Republicans know they can't repeal ObamaCare. And, furthermore, even if they did, it would be at a cost of $200 billion. And what I pointed out to him, Madam Speaker, as he was leaving the floor was, You know, that's really interesting. It's going to cost us $200 billion, if that's accurate, to repeal while it cost us $1.1 trillion to enact. So you can literally go broke saving money, can't you. And by golly, we're going to repeal it because that's what the American people want. If we fall short in our efforts, despite 110 percent on this side of the aisle or, well, in this body and in the other body, then we have a backup plan B. And I know my colleagues would like to talk about that. So I will yield back to the gentleman from Missouri, and let's continue the discussion.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding back to me. And I know we've got two other colleagues on the floor that want to speak. I can only stay for a few more minutes because of a prior engagement, so thank you for giving me an opportunity kind of in front of the queue, if you will. But I'll tell you, one of the things in regard to how you cut, is it by picking and choosing, or in one fell swoop across the board? You know, we just passed a bill, last vote of the day, in regard to our own budgets. And that was a 5 percent across-the-board cut, Madam Speaker, in our member representational account, our expense account that we're allotted each year to pay the salaries of our staff members, and to have a round trip flight back to our districts once a week. And those budgets vary a little bit, depending on, obviously somebody from California is going to have more travel expense than somebody like myself and Representative Graves from Georgia. But we just basically voted to cut 5 percent. And I, quite honestly, and this question that has come up, Madam Speaker, my colleagues talk about, well, how do you do it? I just think we more and more need to look at this thing and say there are no sacred cows. And let these Departments make their case for why maybe there shouldn't be an across-the-board, 2 percent, 3 percent, 4 percent cut. I know I voted in favor of that every time it comes up on these appropriations bills. We didn't get to vote on any in the 111th Congress because our Democratic colleagues didn't get their work done. But this is something we need to really look at carefully. I know that most people, Madam Speaker, are reluctant to talk about cutting Homeland Security and cutting national defense, particularly when we have two wars going on and certainly not wanting to cut the veterans benefits. But there's waste, fraud and abuse and duplication of things across every spectrum of this Federal Government. If we're going to get serious about it, we need to have an adult conversation. And, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, that includes entitlements as well, because if we don't address entitlements, we're looking at one- sixth of the budget; and we're never going to get there just addressing that small portion of the budget. With that, I yield back and continue to listen to my colleagues.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Georgia State Patrol Trooper First Class Chadwick LeCroy, of Marietta, Georgia, my hometown, who was killed in the line of duty by an unrepentant thug on Monday, December 27. At the young age of 38, Mr. LeCroy was a highly respected husband, father, and public servant. He graduated from the 85th Georgia State Patrol Trooper School in August of 2008 and had been a highly respected law enforcement officer in the Atlanta area ever since. Trooper First Class LeCroy is the 27th Georgia State Trooper to be killed in the line of duty, and he leaves behind his wife and two young sons. A hero like Trooper First Class LeCroy will not be forgotten, and I join his family and friends in mourning this momentous loss to them. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering this loyal and heroic Georgian.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 22, a resolution that will reduce House budgets by 5% across the board for the 112th Congress. I commend the author of this legislation--my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Walden--for his leadership on this resolution and for the work he has done over the past few months in leading the Republican transition efforts. On November 2, 2010, the American people spoke very clearly at the ballot box to stop the out-of-control spending here in Washington. They were rightfully tired of the $1 trillion so-called ``Stimulus'' bill and the $1 trillion ObamaCare bill. As you know, Mr. Speaker, these bills are largely to blame for $1.4 trillion deficit for Fiscal Year 2010 that has ballooned our national debt to $14 trillion. Mr. Speaker, at a time when there is 9.8% unemployment and families across the country are forced to tighten their belts, I wholeheartedly believe that Congress should lead by example. H. Res. 22 provides for a 5% reduction for each Member's MRA, which I--as a new Member of the House Administration Committee--believe is a good starting point for us to rein in federal spending. I know that some of my colleagues across the aisle will criticize this proposal for being an act of political theater or not going far enough, so I would ask them a simple question. If--as Members of Congress--we cannot support proposals to cut our own budgets, then how can the American people trust us to make much more difficult budget decisions down the road to reduce our massive debt? Mr. Speaker, as families across the country continue to struggle financially, it is imperative that we show fiscal restraint, and there is no better place to start than here in the halls of Congress. I ask all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 22.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Mr. Lungren. I thank Mr. Brady. I thank Mr. Walden and the members of the transition team, many of whom have spoken on this issue. Mr. Speaker, clearly, it is time for us--we Members of Congress of the House of Representatives--with House Resolution 22, to show good faith and regard to tightening our belts. It has been said by other Members that cutting the Members' representational allowance is kind of routine for a lot of the Members. I know that, this past year, I returned something like $160,000 of the MRA to the Treasury and, over the course of my 8 years in Congress, in the aggregate, some $900,000. Quite honestly, that is more than a 5 percent cut. So it can be done, and many Members have done that as well. We have concerns, of course, as to where that money goes to. Does it go to truly reducing the deficit and long-term debt? I will be introducing, Mr. Speaker, legislation later on today that by law requires that that money that is turned back in goes back to the taxpayer. Yet this piece of legislation, House Resolution 22, is something that I think will have wide, if not unanimous, bipartisan support. As I say, the former chairman of this committee, Mr. Brady, now the ranking member of the current chairman's committee, my good friend Dan Lungren from California, is of the same mind in regard to fiscal responsibility and doing what is right for the American people. On November 2, they were telling us, Look, we are sick and tired of you guys who just keep throwing money at things, like the $1 trillion cost of the stimulus bill and another $1 trillion for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Some people recognize that better as ObamaCare. But, you know, when you've got $1.4 trillion worth of deficit for 2 or 3 years in a row, no wonder you add $5 trillion to the long-term debt, and you get up to something like $14 trillion. So, Mr. Speaker, at a time when there is a 9.8 percent unemployment rate and when families across the country are forced to tighten their belts, I wholeheartedly believe that Congress should lead by example. That is what we are doing with this bill. I appreciate my colleagues giving me time to weigh in on this. I fully support it, and I look forward to being a member of the committee.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, my remarks will be about saving money, but I can't help but take an opportunity to respond to the previous speaker, my good friend, the gentleman, the good doctor from the State of Washington. I would say to him, Madam Speaker, and to my colleagues, when we repeal ObamaCare, which we will do in this House next Wednesday, parents will once again be able to afford a health insurance policy on which to include their adult children. That is what we will be doing. As far as this $110 billion worth of savings we lose in repealing ObamaCare, Madam Speaker, we spent $1.1 trillion to save $110 billion. Hey, Madam Speaker, it is true that you can indeed go broke trying to save money. With that, Madam Speaker, let me get on to my 5-minute discussion. I rise today to encourage my colleagues to recall the conversations they had with their constituents during the recent campaign season. As we begin the 112th Congress, to remember that the American people spoke with a resounding voice, didn't they, on November 2. They told us to abide by the Constitution, to rein in spending, bring about economic stability, create jobs, and end the culture of crafting legislation in the dark of night, 2,400 pages on the health care bill, outside of the view of the public. In order to fulfill this mandate, we must fundamentally change the way we do business here in Washington. I have taken the first steps by introducing several legislative initiatives this week, and they are all centered around the pursuit of meaningful government reform. Madam Speaker, transparency is an integral part of this package and a necessary element for real government reform. For the first time, the Constitution, a document critical to understanding our parameters and responsibility, was read right here in the House today, on the House floor. I am proud to have introduced a bill as part of my initiative stating that any legislation brought to the floor must cite its constitutional authority. Many may find it surprising to know, Madam Speaker, that while votes taken on the floor of the House are available on the Net to view, or on the Web site, that is not necessarily the case in committee. Therefore, my package also contains a committee transparency bill. It would require committee votes to be posted online, on the committee Web site, within 48 hours, so the American people are kept better informed of what their Members are doing and how they are voting in committee. Madam Speaker, the rejection by the American people of the Democrats' reckless spending emphasizes the importance of fiscal responsibility, doesn't it? This is the reason I incorporated the Congressional Budget Accountability Act into my plan. Each year, my colleagues and I receive a fixed budget for all office expenses. We call that the MRA, or the Members' Representational Allowance. This bill would codify that our unused MRA funds must be returned to the Treasury for debt and deficit reduction. Along these lines, I have also included what is called the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which will preclude any Member of Congress from being eligible for a pay adjustment, a so-called COLA, if we have incurred a budget deficit in the previous fiscal year. We may not have a balanced budget amendment, Madam Speaker, but that doesn't mean we can't balance the budget, and I want to hold our feet to the fire. This is yet another way that we can do that. Also in the package, Madam Speaker, is a bill to prevent Federal employees from engaging in union activity on official time. It is amazing that this goes on, but we have estimated that in a 5-year period of time we could save the taxpayer over $600 million and $1.2 billion in a 10-year period of time. Put simply, it is unacceptable that government employees paid with, yes, your tax dollars, are currently permitted to spend time during their workday performing union activities. I have already given you the savings. Equally unacceptable is that legislators in Washington commonly attach legislation that cannot pass on its own merits to unrelated must-pass bills. Let me give you an example, Military Construction-VA. A couple of years ago, we passed that out of committee with an almost 100 percent bipartisan vote. The Democratic majority held that bill up for 100 days because they wanted to attach an unpopular bill, something like the Dream Act or Don't Ask, Don't Tell, some controversial bill, and put our veterans at jeopardy. They literally held them hostage. This bill, Madam Speaker, would say from now on, no attaching unpopular bills to good standalone bills, especially if they are for our veterans and the military. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, while these bills may seem like a small start compared to the big challenges we have ahead of us in this Congress, the 112th, it is a pathway to start changing business as usual in Washington and fulfill the promises we made on November 2 to the American people.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Carrollton Trojans who have been a dominant force in high school football in my home state of Georgia. Carrollton ended the season with a 14-1 record and ranked number two in the state in Class AAA. Coached by Rayvan Teague, Carrollton's offense racked up an eye-opening 632 points this season--averaging 42 points a game--while their defense recorded six shut-outs. I am proud of the Carrollton Trojan's accomplishments and contributions to my home state of Georgia and the 11th District of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the Carrollton Trojans.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Calhoun Yellow Jackets who have been a dominant force in high school football in my home state of Georgia, and in my 11th Congressional District. Calhoun finished the season with a 14-1 record and ranked number two in the state in Class AA. Coached by Hal Lamb, the team beat the number one ranked team in Class AA to reach the finals, only to lose a heartbreaker in overtime. The team was led by senior quarterback Landon Curtis; wide receivers JT Palmer, Ben Lamb, Chase Riserson, and Clay Johnson; and running back Dustin Christian. The Yellow Jackets have won Georgia AA Region Seven for the past ten years straight. I am proud of their accomplishments and contributions to the 11th District of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the Calhoun Yellow Jackets, their five-time State Champion cheerleading squad, Superintendant Dr. Judy Stiefel, Principal Kelly Bumgardner, and the entire student body and community of Calhoun, Georgia.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Calhoun High School Lady Yellow Jackets, Georgia's 2010-2011 Competitive Cheerleading State Champions. Coached by Ginger Reeves, Calhoun's Varsity Competitive Cheerleading Team has been a dominant force in cheerleading in my home state of Georgia, winning four state titles since 2006. The varsity squad consists of Jade Ables, Nikiki Bertuca, Makenzie Blalock, Erica Carter, Christina Cumbey, Gabby Defalco, Brooke Dixon, Morgan Diamond, Ashlyn Gilbert, Jessica Goswick, Melanie Hampton, Asliyah Harris, Mackenzie Kessler, Katelyn Langston, Kristen Langston, Hannah Magnicheri, Magen Pinyan, Mary Plunkett, and Hillary Rhodes. I am proud of all of their accomplishments and their contributions to my home state and the 11th District of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the Calhoun Lady Yellow Jackets.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to again make the case for why the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay should remain open and why Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--or any other hardened terrorist currently residing at Guantanamo Bay-- should never be transferred to the United States to stand trial or for continued detention. When a clear majority of the American people support keeping Gitmo open--as you can see from this chart to my left, Madam Speaker, this pie chart basically says, when you ask the American people what should happen to Guantanamo, fully 55 percent say keep it open. Only 32 percent are in favor of closing Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and 13 percent had no opinion. Well, Madam Speaker, President Obama made closing Guantanamo Bay an immediate priority upon taking office, and he pledged to close the facility within his first year in office. It has indeed been troubling that the administration, in its push to close Guantanamo Bay to, so- called, ``improve'' our world standing, has succumbed to letting untruths dictate the popular story line about how the United States treats its detainees. Rather than expend the effort to correct what have become blatant fabrications, they continue to fight--even as recently as this week--congressional attempts to ban any transfer of detainees to the United States. Put simply, Madam Speaker, Guantanamo Bay has been and remains the best option to detain terrorists that pose a threat to our national security at home and abroad. Let me be clear. Guantanamo Bay houses some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, some of whom have succeeded in their plots to kill American citizens and soldiers. Yet, despite their record of plotting attacks on civilians, beheadings, and using innocent women and children as shields, our military personnel provide the detainees with a host of rights, privileges, and, yes, indeed, respect. If the administration won't tell the full story about how we treat Guantanamo detainees, Madam Speaker, then I certainly will. Among the rights and privileges extended include 24/7 medical service, comprised of things like annual dental checkups, eye exams, physical therapy, mental health services, and one medical staffer for every two detainees. Detainees are afforded anywhere from 4 to 20 hours of outdoor recreation daily; are allowed unmonitored legal communication, have access to more than 15,000 books, magazines, and DVDs in 18 different languages; and they are, indeed, allowed to observe their religious customs. Cultural and dietary needs are met. Each detainee receives up to 6,800 calories per day, with six menus from which to choose. No wonder the average weight gain, Madam Speaker, has been 15 to 20 pounds. That's the reality of Guantanamo Bay. Having gone to these lengths, it is simply, to me, incomprehensible that we would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to transfer these detainees to our shores and make accommodations for them within our borders, especially with a $13.8 trillion national debt that's only growing. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, terrorists who cannot be prosecuted should not be released. This is particularly true given that the recidivism data that was released just last week indicates that up to 25 percent of those released from Guantanamo Bay have reaffiliated with terror groups and rejoined the fight against us, continuing to kill Americans. Madam Speaker, the American people know that the Gitmo detainees-- which include terrorist trainees, terrorist financiers, bomb makers, Osama bin Laden's body guards, terrorist recruiters, and would-be suicide bombers--are not minor offenders by any means. Indeed, attempted attacks on our homeland in the skies over Detroit, in the streets of New York City, and in a courthouse square in Portland, Oregon, remind us that the battlefield is not limited to our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those that seek to do us harm should never be transferred to our soil or tried in our Federal court system, where they would essentially be provided the same protections under our Constitution as the very U.S. citizens they would love to kill. Transferring terrorist detainees to the U.S. could eventually lead to their release--on American soil, Madam Speaker, putting our own citizens at risk. Indeed, any facility where they could be held-- whether for trial or lifelong detention--could itself become a terrorist target. Simply put, the American people believe that bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to American soil--for any purpose--putsAmericans at risk and is a national security threat. The President and his Administration would be wise to listen to the voice of the American people, follow the lead of this Congress, and keep Guantanamo Bay open.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to the rule providing for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. While the majority in the Senate has been unsuccessful in repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell through the National Defense Authorization Act, my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle seem adamant to move forward on this issue by bringing it to the floor again today yet as a standalone bill. What we should be doing, Madam Speaker, is prioritizing the need of our troops over the majority's social agenda and considering the National Defense Authorization Act free of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell language. I know that advocates for this repeal will point to the survey of U.S. Armed Forces personnel regarding the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that 9-month survey that my friend from Florida just mentioned. But let me point to a specific statistic from that survey as well. Question No. 71, posed to active servicemembers with combat deployment experience since September 11, 2001, asks how unit effectiveness would be different if Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed. An overwhelming number of those surveyed for this question answered that unit effectiveness for those stationed in a field environment or out at sea would be ``negatively'' or ``very negatively'' harmed by repeal. Madam Speaker, this survey, which does not present any benefits of appeal and it solely focuses on the mitigation of consequences, has not presented a clear path forward to the question of repealing this ban. The Marine Corps Commandant, General James Amos, stated that repealing the 17-year-old ban could endanger troops and cost lives. Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz echoed concerns about overturning the ban in the midst of the global war on terror. Here is a quote from General George Casey, the Army's Chief of Staff: I believe that the implementation of repeal in the near term will, number one, add another level of stress to an already stretched force; number two, be more difficult in our combat arms units; and three, be more difficult for the Army than the report suggests. Because military leaders must fulfill their constitutional mission of defending America, their views on how to achieve optimal readiness should be respected. Madam Speaker, none--not one--of our service branch chiefs have outright endorsed repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Similar apprehensions have been noted by the American Legion; over 1,500 retired flag and general officers, and countless others. Clearly, the Democrats believe they know better. Madam Speaker, I do not believe that now, in the midst of the war on terror, is the time to rewrite tested military policies. Indeed, the Armed Forces is a special institution that must be free to hold itself to stricter rules than those observed by the rest of our society. And for these reasons, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, oppose this rule and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 5281, the so-called DREAM Act; in fact, many of those and my constituents who abide by the rule of law would call this a ``nightmare act'' rather than the DREAM Act. This legislation has been misnamed from the beginning as an avenue for young men and women to obtain the American Dream; but let me be perfectly clear, Madam Speaker, H.R. 5281 is nothing short of amnesty for illegal immigrants. According to the Migration Policy Institute, an estimated 2 million immigrants will be eligible for amnesty under this bill. That number is not too difficult to imagine given that H.R. 5281 would allow these individuals, once they are naturalized and become 21 years of age, to exploit our broken system by sponsoring their immediate relatives with no numerical cap. We call that chain migration. In fact, they could each bring in something like 179 other individuals. Further, the potential for fraud is exponentially great, considering that one provision of the bill mandates that the immigrant has resided in the United States since they turned 16. My question is simple: How can we verify how long an illegal immigrant has been in the United States? We cannot and should not require ourselves to rely on the word of individuals whose very presence in the United States is illegal. So, Madam Speaker, we all know that the requirements to become a legalized permanent resident under H.R. 5281 do not actually mandate that the potential naturalized citizens complete any college or vocational degree. They just simply have to show up and go for 2 years. If the bill attempts to integrate and educate the immigrant workforce into America, this legislation certainly will not achieve that goal. So, in closing, Madam Speaker, H.R. 5281 will open the doors, yes, to criminal aliens obtaining permanent status to the detriment of legal immigrants. This legislation allows an illegal alien to submit an application for legalized permanent resident status; and in doing so, the Department of Homeland Security will no longer be allowed to deport them, criminal or not. I urge my colleagues, oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends from the Show Me and the Keystone States. We Representatives from the Peach State are very proud of our colleagues and the commonsense discussion that we're bringing to the House floor this evening as part of this Special Order hour, pointing these salient points out to both our Republican and Democratic colleagues. And I join with my friends in saluting the President. I would only wish that I had the opportunity, not being part of either the current Democratic majority leadership or the current Republican minority leadership, to be in that room over at the White House, the Oval Office or wherever they've gotten together to sort of discuss these things. But I would love to be a fly on the wall and listen to some of the advisers. Of course Christina Romer's gone, Peter Orszag's gone, but people like David Axelrod and others are still there. And I can just hear them saying to President Obama, you know, Mr. President, we have given you some advice over these last couple of years and, indeed, you've gotten some advice from Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid and the members of the Democratic majority in the legislative branch that hadn't worked out too well. And, you know, Mr. President, you had said to the American people, elections have consequences and, indeed, you know, we're looking back on November the 2nd and seeing a net gain of Republicans, a net gain of 63 in the House of Representatives and a net gain of six in the United States Senate, Republican Members, and something like 600 Republican new Members in State legislatures across the country; 29, in fact, new Republican Governors. Mr. President, indeed, elections have consequences. It's time, sir, for you to maybe moderate, to get back to the middle a little bit and to listen to the American people. If it's so partisan that you can't listen to the minority party, listen to the American people. They have spoken loud and clear. They are saying it makes absolutely no sense to raise taxes on anybody, especially those who create the jobs. You know, I had heard and have heard from my Democratic colleagues, Mr. Speaker, this mantra, you are going to cut taxes for the rich and it is going to add $800 billion to the deficit, totally ignoring if you cut taxes for everybody else making less than $200,000 a year, that you are cutting $3 trillion of revenue out of the budget. So where is the concern. You are concerned about spending $800 billion to extend the tax cuts for everybody, but you totally ignore the fact that keeping the tax rates in place for everybody making less than $200,000 a year, if you listen to this arcane way of scoring, CBO, that is a $3 trillion increase to the deficit. Our colleagues tonight, Mr. Speaker, are talking common sense, and that is what the American people want. They understand it. They understand when you have a 14.5 million population out of work, an unemployment rate in November alone of 9.8 percent and over 40 percent of these people out of work more than 6 months, no wonder they are begging for an extension of unemployment benefits to the 99 weeks for these additional workers. But the bottom line is when the President comes together with Republican leadership and says: I agree, it is a give and take. It is a check and balance, and I am going to sit down with you guys and gals and I am going to agree that we are going to keep those marginal tax rates just where they are for everybody, we are not going to let the taxation on dividends go back up to 39.6 percent. We are going to keep it at 15 percent so mom and pop can get a decent return on the dividends, we are going to let capital gains stay at 15 percent. And, furthermore, we are going to cut the payroll tax one-third on Social Security, from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for the individual, for the employee. It is a little contradictory to do that at the same time under ObamaCare that we raise the payroll tax 3.8 percent on the so-called high earners, but that is a whole other story. But I think we are coming together with the President. I am pleased with that. I am pleased with him. I think we need to look very closely. Obviously, it is not perfect. I know there are Members on our side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, who are very concerned with the fact that extending unemployment benefits for another 13 weeks to 99 weeks for those who have been unemployed for more than 6 months is not paid for, and that is a concern and we need to address that. But again, this opportunity to come together on the floor tonight to talk in a bipartisan way to all of our colleagues, to say yes, the American people want us to do this now. They don't want us to wait until after January 1. They want us to get this accomplished now. I thank my colleague for giving me an opportunity to weight in.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to at this point interject once again my thoughts as a physician Member of this body about the enactment in March of this past year, almost 10 months ago now, of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act of 2010, or what we refer to as ObamaCare.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, there are a number of terms to describe it. I think, if you do look at a Canadian system or if you look at a British system or many other countries across the world, certainly it is a national health insurance program or, certainly, a march in that direction, and some people do refer to it as socialized medicine. When I joined the Energy and Commerce Committee at the beginning of the 111th Congress, when President Obama took office, I had the opportunity to serve with our Governor-elect of the great State of Georgia, Nathan Deal, who was the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce. We saw that, as this bill came forward, you know, right after several months of trying to pass and, indeed, passing in the House so-called ``cap-and-trade,'' not all of the above, that there was this great emphasis on a carbon tax and on an energy bill that would end up costing every family in this country about $3,000 extra a year in utility bills. So we spent all of this time on this. Why? Was it because elections have consequences or because this was near and dear to the hearts of a Nobel laureate for Vice President Al Gore or our very liberal Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Pelosi, from Haight-Ashbury? You know, I don't know. They were determined, since they had these giant majorities, Mr. Speaker, that we were going to do these things come heck or high water. Then, all of a sudden, you come with this health care bill that costs in a very conservative--I don't know--almost ``cook the books'' estimate by the Congressional Budget Office of only $1 trillion at a time when, as the gentleman's charts depict, we were suffering. The American people were suffering. People were out of work. There were 16 million who were out of work. If you had asked them after 6 months of unemployment, Hey, you can have your job back, but we're not going to be able to offer you health care, they would have taken it in a minute. So it is a matter of priorities, Mr. Speaker, and that is what I want to point out to my colleagues. We wasted a lot of time spending a lot of money while people were suffering and couldn't support their families, while they didn't have jobs and while they were becoming frustrated, depressed and angry. By golly, the result was the election on November 2. I think the President got a wake-up call, and to his credit, he has awakened. What we are talking about a lot here tonight is to say we tip our hat to him in order to be able to come together, to be willing to moderate and to do something to get us back on track. Now, I don't know at what point he might, if ever, admit that ObamaCare was a mistake, but come the House majority of the Republican Party in the 112th Congress, we will, as depicted in our Pledge to America, do everything in our power to repeal that expensive monstrosity that failed on every promise: if you like what you have in health care, you can keep it. It's going to lower the cost of premiums, and on and on and on. So I yield to my colleague as we continue to have this spirited discussion.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman would yield back to me. And I would claim time from my friend on this same point that I think we do need to elaborate on this. I would, Mr. Speaker, suspect that all of my colleagues--certainly most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, the Republican Members of the Congress--would philosophically agree that there should be no tax on death. Death should not be a taxable event. I think Steve Forbes, the brilliant owner, editor and publisher of Forbes magazine, said a number of years ago when he was running for President--I will always remember this--``no taxation without respiration.'' I love that comment. And as a physician, I certainly can relate to it. And again, I would prefer that there be no death tax, estate tax, as our friend from Pennsylvania, Representative Thompson, has just said. This year there is none, there is no taxable event if you die in this calendar year of 2010; but you better hurry up and do it because come January 1, all of a sudden the estate tax goes up to 55 percent with a little old exclusion of $1 million. Well, there are many, many, many small business men and women and farmers who paid for that investment with after-tax dollars that would get hit with that. So as part of this compromise, as my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker knows, the President sat down with the Republican leadership and said, you know, you guys passed a bill on the House floor and it would be a 45 percent tax on everything above $3.5 million, but we will compromise and agree that there will be a $5 million exclusion and the tax on the overage would be only 35 percent. In fact, that's what soon-to-be- former Senator Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas had proposed on the Senate side, along with our Republican colleague, John Cornyn from the great State of Texas. They wanted to do that. That was the bill in the Senate. So basically, again, the President has recognized that. So we get down to the point where .03 percent--a very, very low number--of estates have any tax at all. Well, do our colleagues on this side of the aisle, do the American people say, oh, well, the principle is no double taxation, no taxation without respiration, or do we accept this compromise where hardly anybody pays an estate tax? Again, these are tough questions. They are going to be tough for our Republican colleagues in the House and Senate and I guess tough for our Democratic colleagues as well because they want the 55 percent and they want the exclusion to be $3.5 million or less. So these are the things that we are debating. I think the American people need to know about it. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues need to think about it. But again, I will take the opportunity this evening to commend the President to be willing to come that much closer to what the American people want.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank my gentleman friend from Missouri for giving me the opportunity to join with him and with Representative Thompson of Pennsylvania in this Special Order hour this evening talking about taxes and job creation and the State of the economy. And certainly, as we look at his first slide and the Art Laffer curve referencing, of course, as the top marginal tax rate over the last 40, 60 years, in fact, has gradually decreased, then the amount of revenue has, in turn, increased. And we have seen that, Mr. Speaker. We saw it in 1960 with the Democratic President John F. Kennedy. We certainly saw the same thing occur in 1980 under our great communicator, President Ronald Reagan. The economist Art Laffer, talks about this often, presents it in a very simplified form with his Laffer curve. You know, I think one of the things our colleagues need to understand in regard to the so-called Bush tax cuts, and as Representative Todd Akin has pointed out, Mr. Speaker, it's really been 10 years ago, and so it's a Bush era. But in a time when those lower marginal rates were enacted back in 2001, 2003, we cut the taxes on dividends from a marginal rate to 15 percent, capital gains from 20 percent to 15 percent, even for the low- income earners to 10 percent. I mean, these things had a profound effect, positive effect on revenue. And, of course, when you are faced in an 8-year period of the Bush administration with two wars, the 9/11 attack, the dot-com bubble burst, certainly deficits are going to go up, debts are going to go up, but revenue continued to go up. That's something that I think people need to understand to put it in the proper context. Certainly, as we continue this discussion this evening, I want to close my opening remarks, if you will, by saying this President, President Obama, I am very encouraged by the coming together with the Republican leadership in regard to deciding what is best for this country, what could best stimulate the economy, put people back to work, not have another November unemployment rate of 9.8 percent and over 14.5 million people unemployed--and not only unemployed but, Mr. Speaker, over 40 percent of them unemployed more than 6 months. So this is why the President, thank God, has been, it seems to be, trying to moderate his position. To say to a Republican leadership, I do agree. You have maybe dragged me crying and screaming to the alter of sanity in regard to fiscal policy, but we cannot, in a recession with these kinds of unemployment rates and this number of people unemployed for this prolonged period of time, we can't raise taxes on anybody, and we are not going to do that. And I thank God that the President kind of sold the wisdom--I mean, he has said many times in the past, elections have consequences. Indeed, I think he knows now that on November 2 the American people have spoken, and he is coming our way. I can only hope that the Democratic leadership and the rank-and-file membership of the Democratic Party will listen to him and will listen to Vice President Biden as they come over here and plead with this Democratic majority that it is time to get on board and to moderate, not for the sake of the next election, but for the sake of this and the next generation.