Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Black History Month, I rise today to recognize Lavada Dillard, an African-American from Georgia's 11th Congressional District who has had a major impact on her community. At the age of 16, Lavada displayed great courage when she carried out a successful downtown lunch counter sit-in demonstration. Jailed for 5 days for this act, Ms. Dillard never ceased advocating for equal rights for all individuals. She has been honored twice by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and most recently compiled the history of Rome's Civil Rights Movement for the permanent community archives. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Dillard's outstanding accomplishments and her unwavering commitment to civil rights.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Black History Month, I rise today to recognize Marvin Williams, an African-American from Georgia's 11th Congressional District who has had a major impact on his community. Quality teachers are vital to ensuring children are afforded the best education possible. Mr. Williams is one such educator. For the past 30 years, Mr. Williams has worked as a teacher to inspire children and help them reach their full potential. Marvin currently serves as the Superintendent of the Polk County School District and I am grateful for his expertise as a member of my Education Advisory Board. A gifted musician, Mr. Williams also serves as Minister of Music for Thankful Baptist Church in Rome. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the contributions and accomplishments of this great community and church leader.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Black History Month, I rise today to recognize Tim Houston, an African-American from Georgia's 11th Congressional District who has had a major impact on his community. As a native of Acworth and pastor of Joshua Gospel Tabernacle, Tim has dedicated his life to helping others. In his outreach with the Acworth Community Revitalization program, Tim works to improve his local communities and make Georgia a better place for families to thrive and prosper. In his free time, Tim supports the Acworth Football and Baseball Association, as well as the local after-school enrichment programs. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Tim Houston's contributions to his community and church.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I do rise in support of the rule. And of course I want to thank my colleague from South Carolina, the beautiful Lowcountry, for yielding me this time. While I am, Madam Speaker, supporting the rule, I must also inform my colleagues that I will be opposing the underlying conference report. In December, this House passed responsible legislation that afforded a full-year extension of the payroll tax holiday. It provided long- overdue reforms to unemployment benefits. And of course it mitigated the looming 27.4 percent physician-reimbursement cut for 2 years so that all seniors would still have access to medical care. Most importantly, Madam Speaker, that fiscally prudent legislation was completely offset. My colleagues understand that by that we mean it's paid for with spending cuts. Yet when it came time for the other body to stand with us for the American people, it failed; and it forced us into this 2-month extension. So here we are again. Madam Speaker, I thought that this approach was wrong then, and I still believe that it is wrong now. While I am opposing the conference report, I do need to commend Chairman Camp for ensuring that necessary unemployment insurance reforms stayed in the bill; and I want to also commend Chairmen Upton and Walden for working diligently to include sensible spectrum auction legislation, as well as for their work to make sure that seniors--at least through the end of this year, 10 months--have the ability to see their doctors. As a physician, I have and I will continue to fight for the long-term solution to eliminate this flawed SGR system once and for all. However, despite these efforts, I cannot and I will not support legislation that extends the payroll tax holiday without paying for it. This will add $100 billion to the deficit, and it will create an even greater shortfall within the Social Security trust fund that already has over a $100 billion shortfall just in the last 2 years. And what is it, $2.4 trillion that the government owes the trust fund that's not there, just IOUs in a file drawer in West Virginia. We did the right thing in December, and I believe that it is a travesty that we would now reverse that course. So, Madam Speaker, make no mistake, I support tax relief for hardworking Americans, but by reducing their marginal tax rates. But this legislation is simply an election-year gimmick that jeopardizes our already-fragile Social Security system while literally tricking voters--160 million of them--with the hopes that they believe it's real tax relief.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, we can do better, and quite frankly, the American people deserve better. It's time to end all of these games--the smoke and mirrors, the bait-and-switch, the political gamesmanship, all with concern for this next election and to the detriment of this current and future generations. For that reason, Madam Speaker, while I support the rule, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, I will be voting ``heck no'' against this conference report.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding. And as I look out over this packed House Chamber, and I see seven of my colleagues who are in these, that are participating in this Special Order hour on saving Medicare this evening, I'm estimating that there are about 175 years of clinical experience in the aggregate among these doctors. I am very appreciative, Mr. Speaker, of the Republican leadership and the leadership of our committees that deal with health care, and I'm referring mainly to Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Workforce. And many of the Members here tonight serve on one of those three committees. So our work in the Congress, although not exclusively on health care, I think each and every one of us is a member of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, came to Washington, gave up our medical careers with mixed emotions, I guess, but feeling that there was a need--there was a need--that we had to try to address. Thankfully, our leadership has committed to the House GOP Doctors Caucus that we will be part of the discussion, and we will be part of the solution to saving Medicare. I think I can speak for my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, in regard to our universal opposition to this new entitlement program, the Patient Protection--and I call it the un-Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to as ObamaCare. We are opposed not solely because of its threat to Medicare, but to a large part because of that. And my colleague from the Eastern Shore, Dr. Harris, spoke of the amount of money that was taken out of the Medicare program, something north of $500 billion, and from a program that he also emphasized, as did Dr. Fleming, that by a date certain, it could be as early as 2016, Medicare part A, the hospital trust fund, will be broke. It will be insolvent. There won't be any money there to honor those claims. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris, referenced his aging mom, and I hope she's in good health. And we love our moms. His mom is 88; my mom is 94, Mr. Speaker. And my mom's life is just as precious to her as anybody's life in this Chamber that may be 60 years younger than Mom Gingrey, Helen Gingrey, at age 94. But she depends on this program. She wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for the benefits that were available to her, whether it's medication under part D or whether its the ability to be treated for cancer, which she recently was and had a surgical procedure. So I don't want to take too much of the allotted time tonight because, my colleagues, I want to hear from them; but I just want to say this, that we as the House GOP Doctors Caucus, in conjunction with the physicians in the Senate, sent a letter 2 weeks ago to the AARP, American Association of Retired Persons. I don't know how many people age 50 are retired, but when you include all of these folks that join AARP under the senior status, you're talking about 35 million or more that are in that organization. So we felt very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that we needed to reach out to this organization--which we did. I think some 26 Members, House and Senate, signed a letter and asked them to meet with us. By the way, Mr. Speaker, we did hear back from the executive director, Barry Rand, just within the last couple of days. So what we want to do is say to them, no matter where we have been in the past in regard to issues of Medicare part D, the support of or opposition to ObamaCare, clearly, surely we can all agree in a bipartisan way that we have to save Medicare. That's what this hour is all about, to talk about that. And I look forward to the opportunity, without a lot of public fanfare, until we decide what we can agree on and what we can come forward with in regard to saving Medicare. We, the physicians, the health care providers in the House and Senate, in conjunction with the American Association of Retired Persons and other retired groups, the one that Jim Martin leads--one of my colleagues will mention that in a few minutes. All of a sudden, I'm having a senior moment on the name of that group, but a great group, a great organization. We're going to work together on this. We're going to go forward to the American people in a bipartisan way and say, you know what, we're going to do it now. We're not going to worry about the results of the next election. That will take care of itself. The American people understand who they want in Congress and who they want at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue based on what we do to save these legacy programs. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan's First Congressional District for yielding the time, and I thank him for putting together this Special Order hour. And, indeed, I thank our leadership for making this the designated leadership hour for the Republican Conference this evening and all of my colleagues that are participating. The gentleman spoke about some of the things in ObamaCare. As the gentleman from the eastern shore said, the name of the bill that the patients know it for--or dislike it for, I think is the way he put it. And certainly 60 percent or more still, 2 years after its passage--I guess when former Speaker Pelosi said they'll have to find out what's in it and I think they'll like it, well, they found out what's in it and they don't like it. And one thing that was in it, still in it, unfortunately, that nobody really likes, yet our Democratic colleagues fought tooth and nail yesterday on the House floor to keep the CLASS Act in this ObamaCare, Affordable Care Act. We call it the ``unaffordable care act.'' And the CLASS Act was a provision that was inserted, Mr. Speaker, on the Senate side in the latter stages just before, in fact, they voted on the Senate side to approve the bill. In the CLASS Act is this so-called long-term care provision that former Senator, God rest his soul, Senator Kennedy had worked on for years, and this was something that his staff wanted to have in the bill as a legacy to his memory. I understand that. But not only was it half- baked, I think it was about quarter-baked, and it was a bill, a section of the bill, 2,700 pages, so it was just one section, but one of the most egregious provisions in regard to what it's going to cost our poor, burdened American taxpayer, this CLASS Act, in regard to long- term care provisions. And thank goodness for our former Senator, Judd Gregg, who was chairman of the Budget Committee on the Senate side, is now retired. But he was on the Health Committee in the Senate and proffered an amendment that said you couldn't go forward. The Secretary would not be allowed to go forward with this CLASS Act provision on long-term care unless she could certify that it was fiscally solvent in the out-years. And another Member, the current--in fact, the current Budget Committee chair on the Senate side, Democrat Kent Conrad, said in 2009 that it was a Ponzi scheme of the highest order. In fact, he even said it would have made Bernie Madoff proud. I couldn't have said it any better than that, because what it called for, or what it calls for is something that absolutely is a Ponzi scheme. It requires people that sign up for this CLASS Act, long-term care insurance, to pay premiums for 6 years before they would be eligible to have a benefit if they were disabled and they needed care with daily living activities in their home. So it looked like this part of the bill was going to generate $80 billion in cost savings, and boy did they ever proffer that point. Eighteen months later, the secretary of Health and Human Services finally says we can't make this work, we have looked, turned it upside down, inside out, backwards, eight ways to Sunday. In fact, they had a flowchart that had an algorithm of how they could possibly make this program work. It included things like saying that people with preexisting conditions had to wait 15 years before they were eligible for a benefit, that these preexisting exclusions would go away. Then they said, no, maybe we ought to eliminate anybody. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle yesterday said you mean you're going to deny coverage to people with Alzheimer's and with metastatic cancer and with type 2 diabetes and renal failure, and all this stuff? These are the things that the Secretary wanted to say, We are going to have to not allow them to participate with these preexisting conditions; not us, not our side of the aisle. In fact, let me make this point before I yield back to Dr. Benishek so he can yield to others that are here on the floor. The only thing that they could come up with, Secretary Sebelius, that would make this program work was the ninth thing, and that was to make it mandatory, say everybody has to sign up for long-term care insurance whether they want to or not. I think they already know they have a little bit of a problem in regard to mandating health care in regard to the case that is before the Supreme Court now. They will have 5\1/2\ hours of testimony in March and a decision probably in June. I don't think they wanted to go down that road again, and so she threw up her hands and said, We are not going forward with it. We voted on the House floor yesterday to strike that bill from the law, remove it from the books because, if we don't, here is the problem with the CLASS Act still being kind of inactive, sitting there in the statute, in law, even though the Democrats say you don't need to remove it because the Secretary says she is not going to go forward. But the law says very specifically that she will have a program for people to participate in by October 1, 2012. That is less than 9 months from now, if my math is correct. Someone could simply say, You didn't provide this and the law requires it, and therefore I'm going to bring suit against the Federal Government. This could go on and on and on. Then the people who are trying to develop a long-term care insurance policy so that folks could afford it and it would work, they are not going to work on that until they know that the Federal Government is not continuing to mess with the system and cause more and more delay. I wanted to mention that because I thought it was very important. The vote yesterday to repeal had 26 of our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle. That is pretty darn good in this body in regard to bipartisanship. We hope and pray, as this bill goes over to the other body and gets to the desk of the majority leader, Senator Reid, that it won't just stack up like one more piece of cordwood as did the 30 bills that we've passed in the first session of the 112th Congress. Hope springs eternal. I think we did a good piece of work yesterday. I am proud to be here with my colleagues.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, I thank the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment before we close tonight. The members of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, along with the health care providers that caucus on the Senate side, in the other body, have just recently sent a letter to the American Association of Retired Persons, AARP, the executive director Mr. Barry Rand, asking them and the 35 million seniors that they represent in their advocacy, and of course the definition of a senior for them is anybody who has reached the age of 50, so certainly they can reach a whole lot more seniors, and I'm sure membership is important to them, so we have sent a letter to them reaching out to the organization and asking AARP to meet with the Doctor's Caucuses in the respective bodies in a very bipartisan way to try to save Medicare. There are things that that organization, which I respect, indeed, I've been a member of, that we agree with, and there are things that we don't agree on. Now, AARP was opposed to what we had in the Republican budget last year, the so-called Paul Ryan budget in regard to how to strengthen, protect, preserve, the Medicare program, not just for our current seniors and recipients of that program, but for our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, indeed. So we want to ask them to sit down with us and say what they do like. We know what they don't like. I guess they didn't like the mandate of premium support in our budget last year. But Chairman Ryan this year is working very closely in a bipartisan way with Senator Wyden, the gentleman from Oregon, in regard to this same idea of premium support. But instead of mandating it--and of course it was only mandated for those younger than age 55; everyone else was held harmless--now the idea is to say, Look, let's let everyone choose and decide. It's their option. Do they want to stay on Medicare as we know it, the legacy program, or would they prefer to go to the doctor and the hospital of their choice with their own premium support? So I just wanted to mention that, and I'm looking forward to having a dialogue with the AARP and the 35 million seniors that they represent. Back in 2003, my colleagues weren't here then, but I was, and I had an opportunity to vote in favor, as a physician Member, of the Medicare part D, the Prescription Drug Act, and AARP supported that. And yet our Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of them symbolically came to the well and tore up their membership card of the AARP. So we're going to work with them. I think it's very important.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to insist on regular order here.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to my good friend and the good doctor, my colleague from the State of Washington, who made reference to, I think, Groundhog Day. Now, my name, Mr. Chairman, is Phil Gingrey, but as I sat here over the last couple of hours listening to the argument on the other side of the aisle, I feel like Phil Connors, and that was the weatherman. Bill Murray, if you recall, played that role, the weatherman at Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, covering Groundhog Day. And believe me, we have been listening to Groundhog Day from my colleagues on the other side over and over and over again, and it is indeed getting just a little bit tiring. My friend also said, the gentleman, the doctor from the State of Washington, Mr. Chairman, and I quote him: ``I've never seen a Congress that has failed as much as this one.'' Well, I'm going to tell you, I have never seen a provision of law in a bill that has failed as much as the CLASS Act. And they can beat this to death--and I think they have done that, Mr. Chairman--but I have in my hand here a summary sheet of the HHS analysis of the CLASS Act over an 18-month period of time. And they have tried to model eight different options to make this fiscally solvent, and required by the law--thank goodness, thank goodness for the amendment from the Senator from Rhode Island, the Honorable Judd Gregg, at the time chairman or ranking member of the Budget Committee. The eight options, none of them work. I mean, there are things like a work requirement. There are things like not allowing anybody with a preexisting condition to be in the program, allowing people with preexisting conditions to be in the program but only eligible for a benefit for 15 years, and on and on and on. Actually, the one option that's not on this printout, I guess, is option number nine, and that would be the option, Mr. Chairman, of requiring every individual to sign up for the long-term program under the CLASS Act. Now, the question on all of these options was: Does the Secretary have legal authority? And in most of the eight: Not completely; HHS vulnerable to legal challenge. Not completely; vulnerable to legal challenge. Not completely--again, vulnerable. No authority. No authority. No authority. No authority. Well, number nine, individual mandate, making everybody sign up for it, yes, got the authority to do that. She could have done that. But I'm sure that my colleagues and her advisors and the administration probably--and I state this rhetorically. Do you want another mandate to which the American people can rail against us in the next election? And she is smart enough to know that option number nine was not unacceptable. So, again, we could go on and on. We could do this for another couple of hours and continue this Groundhog Day ruse, but, as I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, what part of ``no'' do they not understand? Now, look, when this amendment was added at the last moment back in 2009 by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Mr. Pallone, during the Energy and Commerce Committee debate on the CLASS Act, Chairman Pallone stated, and I quote him: ``I can't stress enough that we are not actually setting this up. We are simply suggesting.'' That was the end of the quote. In fact, Chairman Pallone asserted that the program would not take effect until subsequent legislation was passed. Well, Mr. Barton, who, at the time, was the ranking member of the overall Committee of Energy and Commerce, said this: ``Well, reclaiming my time, I am going to support the Pallone amendment without binding anybody on my side to support it, with the understanding that if this moves forward, there will be a hearing on this in this committee, and there will be bipartisan efforts to flesh it out. Do I have that assurance from the chairman?'' And Mr. Pallone responded, ``You certainly have my assurance.'' And then the chairman, Henry Waxman, overall chairman of the committee said, fine with me, but he is the subcommittee chairman. We never had one hearing. We never had an opportunity to flesh it out. Defeat this amendment.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1173 and insert any extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, it has been more than 2 years since the CLASS Act was first debated as part of the President's health care takeover debate. We knew then that the program was flawed and unworkable; yet the Democratic-controlled Congress ignored these concerns and instead rushed the CLASS program through as part of the President's health care law. Now, 2 years and more than $800 billion later, we have finally heard from the President and his administration that while they have wasted taxpayer dollars, this program is in fact not implementable. Surprised? Well, you shouldn't be. The truth is that unbiased analysts such as the American Academy of Actuaries had raised concerns with the program as early as July of 2009, some 5 months before the President's plan was even considered on the Senate floor. Members from both sides of the aisle also raised concerns about the program's long-term sustainability during this debate. Most disturbing is what we came to find in a bicameral investigation last year that revealed concerns from within HHS were rampant during PPACA debate, but they were never brought to light by the Democratic leadership or the Obama administration. Yet the program was rushed through so that we can, as then-Speaker Pelosi noted, ``find out what's in it.'' On October 14, 2011, Secretary Sebelius announced what honest accounting told us was inevitable: the Obama administration finally admitted there was no viable path forward and, therefore, was halting any further efforts of implementing the CLASS program. The failure of Health and Human Services to implement the CLASS program certainly is not a surprise. However, it is a catastrophic consequence of what happens when Congress rushes to enact costly policies and dismisses warnings from independent experts. Most troubling are the budget gimmicks used to sell the CLASS program and, indeed, the entire law. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimated the CLASS program would save money by collecting premiums from enrollees, premiums that will now never be collected in light of a failed implementation. We knew, Madam Chair, the savings estimates for the President's health care plan were wrong. It defied common sense that such a massive spending expansion would have no cost. Now the President will have to explain to the American people why the health care law--ObamaCare, PPACA, Patient Protection, Affordable Care Act, Unaffordable Care Act-- he'll now have to explain to the American people why this health care law will cost them $80-plus billion more than what they were told. That is more than $80 billion on top of the trillions the President has added to the books since he took office in January of 2009. Today, we will have the opportunity to start over on long-term care reform, an issue that's important to all of us as we hear from constituents regularly about the growing cost of long-term care services. The market has not even been penetrated 10 percent, Madam Chair. We will now begin that process. But first, we must take this section out of the health care bill known as CLASS. We must take it off the books. I urge my colleagues to support just what this bill does, remove CLASS from the statute, H.R. 1173, repeal the failed CLASS program so that we can now move forward with reforms that do work. With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chairman, as the co-lead sponsor of this bill, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1173. I commend Dr. Boustany and Chairman Pitts for their leadership on this issue, and I thank Mr. Lipinski on the Democratic side. In response to a question I put to him in March of last year, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote: ``The Secretary of Health and Human Services has now concluded that the CLASS program cannot be operated without mandatory participation so as to ensure its solvency.'' HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called the program insolvent, and Democratic Senator Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, called the program in 2009 a Ponzi scheme. In fact, he went on to say that it would make Bernie Madoff proud. Madam Chair, during its consideration in 2009, CMS Actuary Richard Foster told the Obama administration staff: ``Thirty-six years of actuarial experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant Federal subsidies to continue.'' He was ignored. In fact, he was eventually cut out of the email loop. The Health Committee on the Senate side and the staff of Senator Kennedy didn't want to hear any more from him. Subsequently, in December of 2010, the President's fiscal commission recommended Congress reform or repeal--not amend--the CLASS Act. The commission report stated: ``Absent reform, the CLASS program is . . . likely to require large general revenue transfers or else collapse under its own weight. The commission advises the CLASS Act be reformed in a way that makes it credibly sustainable over the long term. To the extent this is not possible, we advise it be repealed.'' In February of 2011, Secretary Sebelius testified before a Senate Finance Committee hearing that the CLASS program was ``totally insolvent'' as structured and needed to be reformed in order to work. Then, in October of 2011, the Secretary released a report on the CLASS Act that essentially found the Obama administration could not make the program actuarially sound or credibly sustainable, to quote the President's fiscal commission, over a 75-year period. Thank God for Senator Judd Gregg for putting that amendment in on the Senate side that called for fiscal sustainability and the certification by the Secretary over a 75-year period of time or it could not go forward, and that's exactly what happened. Based on the evidence the CLASS program is not simply flawed--it is broken. As currently written, it poses a clear danger to the fiscal health of our budget and to the American taxpayer. In defending this broken program, some of my colleagues have told me that there is no need to repeal CLASS because the Secretary has already abandoned it. Yet every day that we delay in repealing CLASS, we prevent Congress from passing meaningful, true long-term care reform. All sides admit that CLASS does not work, so the prudent step is to repeal it. In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation so that we can get to the meaningful reform of long-term care and have the marketplace work its magic in regard to this so that the penetration is greater than the current penetration, which is less than 10 percent. With that, Madam Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues to support the repeal of a broken, failed program, the CLASS Act.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the amendment No. 5, or Deutch 2, is an amendment essentially that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has already looked at, some of these provisions, in eight different ways in trying to come up with some possibility of certifying the fiscal solvency of this CLASS Act within the 75-year budget window, the out-years. Thank goodness, Mr. Chairman, for the wisdom of Senator Judd Gregg on the Senate side when that amendment was accepted in the health committee. I don't know whether it was unanimously accepted by the Democrats, but I think it was. Again, the prescience and the wisdom of Senator Gregg is something the American people should be, and I think will be, eternally grateful for. The Secretary looked at the possibility of saying that we'll make this fiscally solvent if we eliminate eligibility for anybody with a preexisting condition. Then they said, Well, no, that's not going to work. So let's say, how about a 15-year waiting period for someone with preexisting conditions. Finally, ultimately, looked at the possibility of yet again making this part of ObamaCare, the CLASS program, a mandatory participation. How has that worked out for them thus far in regard to the exchange in young people being forced, under the ruse of the Constitution, of the commerce clause, to do that under the penalty of law, increase taxes or penalties, or whatever they want to call it? Well, the Supreme Court will ultimately make that decision. Mr. Chair, the Secretary had every opportunity to look at this. We are talking about, I say to the gentleman from Florida, over an 18-month period of time, and they absolutely could not certify it. You can delay and delay and delay, but what part of ``no'' does the gentleman not understand? No, this will not work. This amendment is unnecessary. We know that this program will not work. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they want to leave the provision in the bill. They want to let it stand there so they can somehow maybe with the next administration or with the next chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee or whomever on their side of the aisle might want to resurrect Freddy Krueger one more time on the backs of the American taxpayer. This is a fiscal train wreck. Mr. Chairman, the bill actually calls for the provision of a plan at a date certain, October of 2012. I'm an OB/GYN physician. That's less than 9 months. That goes quickly. I know that about 9 months. When you get there, folks that are looking and counting on the CLASS program long-term care insurance, they want to sign up for it. And the Federal Government says, I know it's on the books, I know it's still part of the law, I know we are obligated to have a program for you to choose from by October 1, 2012; but we decided not to go forward with it. What's to prevent them from suing the Federal Government? While these lawsuits are pending and going on and on and on--as an attorney jobs bill, it would have some merit. In the meantime, the private market for long-term care insurance, they are not innovative. They are not going to do anything until the legality of that is cleared up. We feel very strongly that this would be a bad amendment, and I strongly oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. My good friend, my very good friend from Georgia, the gentleman from DeKalb, made the statement about what is the reason; there is really no reason to strike this; why not leave it on the books. And I think that's the argument we have heard all afternoon in regard to the position of the Democratic side. But let me just read a few passages from a report that we requested from the Congressional Research Service as to why, in response to my friend from DeKalb and my good colleague from Georgia: Judicial review assumes that the Secretary takes no further action to comply with the CLASS Act's statutory mandate to designate a benefit plan by October 1, 2012. The Secretary would appear to be committing a facial violation of the statutory requirement to designate such plan. Her failure to take such action conceivably could be challenged in court under the Administrative Procedure Act, APA, which defines agency action to include the failure to act. They go on to say: The CLASS Act does not preclude judicial review and the Secretary's designation of a benefit plan is a mandatory, as opposed to a discretionary requirement. So judicial review does not appear to be precluded. Therefore, if the Secretary fails to perform the action required by the statute, that inaction would appear to be reviewable. I continue: A failure by the Secretary to designate a CLASS benefit plan by October 1, 2012, presumably predicated upon a determination by her-- that is not possible to develop three actuarially sound benefit plans that meet all the requirements of the act--would appear to be a final agency action from which ``legal consequences will flow.'' Inaction by the Secretary in designating a plan by the deadline could be found by a reviewing court to constitute noncompliance with a statutory mandate. Thus, after October 1, 2012, the Secretary's failure to take an action legally required of her would appear to meet the standard for judicial review of agency inaction unlawfully withheld under the APA, Administrative Procedure Act, provision prescribing the scope of judicial review of agency action. I asked one of my colleagues a few minutes ago, What part of ``no'' do you not understand?

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, look, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is an attorney. I'm just an old country doctor. But, you know, this is plain language, and I'll be happy to provide his office with a copy of this Congressional Research Service report. I'm not going to get deep into the weeds of the legal argument back and forth, but this is about as plain as the nose on your face. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, here again, when Mr. Barton, the ranking member of the committee, asked very specifically, Mr. Chairman, when he asked very specifically in the markup on the House side back in 2009, if I vote ``yes'' for that, will we have hearings to--I think it was ``to flesh this out.'' He was assured, of course, by the chairman at the time of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Pallone, and also the chairman of the overall committee, Mr. Waxman of California, said, Hey, it's okay with me. No hearings were held. So this business of can't we work this out, but yet we were reaching out, and it never happened. I yield back to my friend.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asked me a specific question, and I want to respond to my friend. You know, the point I will make to him is that we can work together. We absolutely can. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this with Mr. Pallone. I have done so personally, as I know my physician colleague on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Burgess, has had a conversation with Mr. Pallone. We can work together, but we have to remove this failed program first because of that looming deadline of October 1, 2012, where we'll get sued if we don't have a program. So I'd be glad to work with the gentleman.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. In regard to you yielding an additional 5 minutes to me, in fact, that is not true. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the gentleman from Tennessee, Representative Fincher, moved to strike the last word and was afforded the 5 minutes, as we all are, and he yielded to me. I certainly would oppose the gentleman's unanimous consent request for you to--I don't think you have the authority to do that quite honestly.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of H. Res. 496, offered by my good friend, the chairman of the House Administration Committee, Mr. Lungren. With all due respect to the ranking member, Mr. Brady from Pennsylvania, I have to agree with the chairman that this runaway spending that we have seen occur over the last 4 to 6 years has got to stop. And the American people clearly, Madam Speaker, are looking to Members of Congress to tighten their own belt. And that's why I think it's very important that we give them the message that we're willing to cut our own salaries, we're really willing to cut our own benefit package. And we have done that; we have voted to do that. And these cuts, as painful as they are in regard to our House committees--indeed, 9.5 percent when we include this cut over all of the committees, although we do cut the House Committee on Armed Services by a lesser amount, and we plus-up the House Ethics Committee, and we think that's very important. It is so crucial that we bite the same bullet that everybody else has to bite. And this bloated spending, this runaway spending that occurred during the previous majority in this House has got to stop. Spending $850 billion on a failed stimulus program, increasing the deficit-- doubling it, in fact--having over $1 trillion worth of deficit spending for now 4 years in a row when we anticipate the President's next budget, this has got to stop. So we have to put our money where our mouth is, we have to walk the same walk as everybody else, and we have to tighten our belt. So, Madam Speaker, that's why I stand here today as a member of the Committee on House Administration and one of the subcommittee chairs in strongly endorsing and supporting these necessary, painful cuts in H. Res. 496. I hope we will have support on both sides of the aisle. I'm confident we will. I respect, as I say, the ranking member. He's a great Member, he works in a bipartisan way, and that's what this is all about.