Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. As I said earlier, the kindest thing I can say is it is disingenuous. Stop the Democrats' plan to end Medicare. If left alone, the Democrats' Medicare cut plan created in ObamaCare threatens Medicare seniors today as well as those who will come into the program tomorrow. So, colleagues, how do we stop the Democrats' Medicare cut plan first and foremost? We need to repeal ObamaCare. But we need to vote and support Dr. Roe's bill to repeal this IPAB board and tell President Obama and Democrats that Medicare reform should not rely on restricting benefits and access for sick and disabled seniors in need. As we conclude tonight, let me just say, colleagues, oppose the Democrats' Medicare cut board. Visit the GOP Doctors Caucus Web site and sign the online petition. Oppose the Democrats' plan to destroy Medicare. And here are the Web sites: doctorscaucus.gingrey.house.gov or doctorscaucus.murphy.house.gov, the two cochairs of the House Doctors Caucus. Mr. Speaker, I thank our leadership for giving us an opportunity to bring to the American public and to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle the true facts of this case--that we have a plan; the President has no plan. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I now yield to my cochair of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr. Tim Murphy.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise, of course, in strong support of this bill and rule, that of cut, cap, and balance. The gentlelady from Texas just stood up and said she would call it the ``Tap Dance'' bill. Quite frankly, what the President has in mind I would refer to as the ``Whistling Past the Graveyard'' plan. This cut, cap, and balance approach to this problem is just that within the first provision of cutting spending, Mr. Speaker, of $111 billion and with $35 billion of that, by the way, for mandatory spending, yet not one dime--not one dime--from Social Security or Medicare. We protect our seniors. But as to this spending problem, I mean, it's just like the problem in this country with drunk driving. Are we going to solve that problem by raising the blood alcohol level? Absolutely not. Are we going to solve this problem of runaway spending by just simply raising the debt ceiling without these caveats of cut, cap, and balance? Absolutely not. That's why we have to do this--to rein in this spending and to bring it down to historical levels of 20 percent of GDP. Then the final part of cut, cap, and balance, Mr. Speaker, is the balance part. The President is asking for a balanced approach. That's exactly what this is. This is the balanced approach that makes sense because every other pledge in the past with regard to reining in spending, whether we're talking about Pay-As-You-Go--the Democrats like to tout that plan--never has worked because we don't abide by these pledges; we continue to spend. The only way to make sure that future Congresses rein in this spending on a permanent level is to have a balanced budget amendment that calls for a supermajority to raise taxes. There are 49 out of 50 States that have a balanced budget amendment. Why in the world wouldn't Democrats join with Republicans in calling for a balanced budget amendment? Then to think that the President would issue a statement of administrative policy in opposition to this is absolutely ridiculous. Support this commonsense bill. Stand strong for our country. This is the land of the free, but it has to be the land of the strong before it can become the land of the free.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 493 on final passage of H.J. Res. 68, authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a death in my family which required me to immediately return to Georgia. Had I been present, I would have vote ``no.'' On rollcall No. 494 on final passage of H.R. 2278 to limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a death in my family which required me to immediately return to Georgia. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 478 on final passage of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a death in my family which required me to immediately return to Georgia. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``aye.''

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 491 on final passage of H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a death in my family which required me to immediately return to Georgia. Had I been present, I would have vote ``aye.''

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 672, and I commend my good friend from Mississippi (Mr. Harper) for his authorship. The distinguished minority whip, the former Democratic majority leader, just made the statement essentially saying that few things are more important in this country than ensuring that every American citizen's right to vote is protected, and the EAC helps America to vote. We agree on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker. We agree that few things are more important than ensuring Americans can vote. However, the Election Assistance Commission's support in this area is negligible at best. In 2005, and again in 2010, the National Association of Secretaries of State, the individuals in the States tasked with overseeing elections, called for the dissolution of the EAC. The committee heard firsthand testimony from Secretaries of State that affirmed the passion with which they support this bill, the Harper bill, and how useless they feel this agency has become. When those who oversee elections call for the dissolution of an agency supposedly meant to be supporting their efforts, Congress should listen. But no, it's like President Ronald Reagan once said, and I quote him: ``No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.'' Mr. Speaker, the minority whip just basically said the same thing, that once an agency is created, even after it's performed its function, it's done its duty, it's time to eliminate it. And we're talking about millions of dollars. This is an important bill. As the gentleman from Mississippi so clearly stated, if we can't do this, what can we do in regard to reducing unnecessary spending of the taxpayer dollars so we'll have those precious dollars for other more important matters to help our States? So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please, let's have a unanimous vote in support.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today not just as a Congressman, but as a physician with nearly 30 years of experience treating and interacting with patients. Wearing both of these hats has allowed me to understand our health care system at each end of the spectrum, and it allows me to say with absolute certitude that the Democrats and President Obama have written the wrong prescription for Medicare. With 47 million Americans relying on our Medicare system and millions more to enter soon, it is absolutely irresponsible not to inform the public accurately of the facts about its current path if left unchanged. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, when the President's health care bill was signed into law, it ended Medicare as we know it. According to the nonpartisan Medicare Actuary, Medicare will run out of money in 2024. That is what, 13 years from now. The Congressional Budget Office says it will be as soon as 2020, 9 years from now. House Republicans have chosen to face the facts and responsibly proposed a comprehensive plan for Medicare. The Republican budget saves Medicare by maintaining benefits as they are for those 55 years and older, while also strengthening it by bringing true choice and competition to maintain and save Medicare for our children and for our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats' plan for Medicare reform is included in the 2,400 pages of, you guessed it, ObamaCare, which is bad for American seniors and bad for the country. Their plan empowers a panel of unelected bureaucrats to ration senior health care. This panel will focus its cuts on the chronically ill and the disabled, these Medicare recipients who need care the most because they use the most health care services. Health care rationing has never, Mr. Speaker, has never been the American way, but it certainly appears to be the Democrats' way. As a doctor, I know that the last thing patients need are bureaucrats who are unanswerable to the public, indeed, even to the Congress, making health choices for them. The Democrats' plan also allows for a $500 billion raid on Medicare to fund programs in ObamaCare, a fact that they have conveniently ignored while they are consistently criticizing Republicans for so- called ``cutting'' care. The plan put forth by President Obama and the Democrats is a plan that cuts Medicare for seniors today, and it leaves Medicare bankrupt for our future generations, our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, my diagnosis is that American seniors should be worried only if we sit back and do nothing about Medicare or accept the Democrats' plan to gut it from sick and disabled seniors. We cannot allow it to continue on its current path to insolvency, as the Democrats and President Obama would have it. We need to support Medicare reform now so that we will have Medicare tomorrow, and that includes eliminating this rationing board as soon as possible.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I can say this to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: While I've been sitting here this morning, I haven't heard anything from either side that I disagree with. I am going to support Speaker Boehner's resolution, and I am going to probably oppose Representative Kucinich's resolution for this reason the Speaker convinced me of, and I listened very carefully to him: With regard to within 2 weeks pulling everything that we have in Libya out and coming home, it would set a dangerous precedent in regard to our NATO allies. Make no mistake about it, this President got us into this mess. It was his ignoring of the War Powers Resolution. I don't know who was advising him in regard to that, whether or not it was the Attorney General, but it was an absolute mistake. Now that he has committed us-- the United States of America and our troops--to NATO through this U.N. resolution, I feel it would be a mistake to immediately, within 14 days, pull the rug out from under that operation. I am not completely satisfied with the Boehner resolution, but I think it does lay down a marker. It makes a statement. The Speaker was very clear in speaking to us that this is not the end of this, that this is the beginning. We have the ability to amend, if we need to, the War Powers Resolution. We need to make it very clear. I don't know who the President notified in regard to this operation. What did he do-- send a tweet to the chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees and the respective Select Committees on Intelligence? That's not good enough for me, a Member, one of 435 in this body. It should never happen again, and that's what this is all about today.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for leading this hour on such an important discussion. And of course I thank all of my colleagues on the floor here tonight. I understand that Dr. Roe has authored the repeal legislation of IPAB, this Independent Payment Advisory Board, created under ObamaCare. Dr. Roe, Mr. Speaker, just said that the doctor-patient relationship, the provider-patient relationship, be that provider an advanced practice nurse or psychologist, a physician, even the hospitals, of course, are huge providers of health care, and who should we be concerned with as Members of Congress. Well, it is those 700,000 people that each of us represent all across this country and that doctor- patient, provider-patient relationship that is most important. Cost, of course, is important. But, first and foremost, is the sanctity of that care, and that is exactly what Dr. Roe is speaking of, Mr. Speaker, and why it is so important that we do vote to pass his bill, and we do it as quickly as possible to repeal this very bad decision. In fact, Mr. Speaker, back I think in December of 2009, almost 2 years ago now, our colleague on the other side of the aisle, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Richard Neal, offered a letter that many of us in a bipartisan way cosigned. I think there were over 100 signatories to that letter literally begging the President and the administration to forget this idea of creating this exact same board that Dr. Roe is talking about and my colleagues will be talking about tonight. It was called something different then in the construction phase of ObamaCare. But whatever you call it, today of course we understand it as IPAB. IPAB, Independent Payment Advisory Board; I call it IBAD, Independent Bureaucratic Absolute Dictators, these unelected 15 people that can literally, and will, as the gentlewoman from New York just said, Dr. Hayworth, they will have the ability come 2014 to start making these cuts and to make them where the biggest growth area and cost is. Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know, they say that there will be no rationing. Well, you can say it is not rationing, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck. And it is rationing. What will happen, and we know it, we health care providers that have spent, what, 500 years of clinical experience in the aggregate, we know exactly what these bureaucrats will do. They'll say if someone is above a certain age, let's pick one, say if you're 65 years old and you come down with leukemia, lymphoma, and what you desperately need when that chemotherapy has failed to keep you in remission is a bone marrow transplant, but because that is so expensive, the decision will be made that no, nobody over a certain age, nobody over a certain age will be eligible for a transplant of a kidney, of a lung, of a liver, of a heart, indeed. This is something that is absolutely unacceptable to us. It is unconscionable. So, Mr. President, and I say this through you, Mr. Speaker, please, listen to us. Listen to us. We have another letter coming. It is going to be signed by all 21 of the members of the House GOP Doctor's Caucus. I wish we had some Democratic members as a part of this group, but hope springs eternal and maybe they will. But listen to us because we know of what we speak. Don't make this mistake. Don't go down this road. This is not the way to solve the Medicare crisis and the insolvency that is coming very quickly by 2024. You say you can't accept the House Republican budget, the so-called ``Ryan budget,'' the path to prosperity that includes some, I think, significant and very thoughtful, adult, mature decisions regarding what we need to do on Medicare. All right. Let's get together. Let's get in a room and let's talk about it. But you want to kick the can down the road and do nothing except slash Medicare to pay for your new signature issue, ObamaCare--slash it by $500 billion. Don't put it back into Medicare, but create this whole new program and force more people on to Medicaid, weaken Medicare and then just hope for the future. Well, I think the American people have seen enough of that. I know there are a number of my colleagues here tonight who need time, but I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, and I will close with this: On the House GOP Doctors Caucus Web site, Mr. Speaker, folks, my colleagues, you can go to that Web site, and your constituents can go to that Web site. It's DoctorsCaucus.Gingrey.house.gov or DoctorsCaucus.Murphy.house.gov. The reason for the ``Gingrey'' and the ``Murphy'' is that we just happen to be the co-chairs now of the House GOP Doctors Caucus. That, obviously, will change in future Congresses, but that's the way to go to the Web site. We are going to ask you to sign a petition: Oppose the Democrats' Medicare cut board, because that's what it is, a ``cut board.'' Visit the GOP Doctors Caucus Web site. Sign the online petition: Oppose the Democrats' Medicare cut plan.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding me this time. As everyone knows, the financial health of this Nation is in a very precarious State. Unfortunately, it was made worse by the spending decisions and actions of this last Congress. Today, the Federal Government borrows 41 cents of every dollar it spends. We are facing a $1.6 trillion deficit for this fiscal year, the third straight year of trillion-dollar deficits, an all-time record in nominal terms and a new post-World War II record as a share of the economy. The reckless spending of the last Congress has only exacerbated this problem. The so-called stimulus bill--that didn't stimulate much besides a lot of wasteful spending--and ObamaCare, the Patient Protection and I think un-Affordable Care Act, are two such examples of legislation that spent recklessly. Mr. Chairman, among the 2,400 pages of ObamaCare, the last Congress created $105 billion in secret slush funds that can be used to advance the political goals of President Obama and his administration without our oversight, congressional oversight. At a time when our country is facing financial ruin, my concern is how much damage to our national budget the White House can do with these funding streams. The time for blank checks is over. The time for leadership is now. Section 5508 of ObamaCare provides a $230 million direct appropriation for teaching health centers residency programs. H.R. 1216 would simply convert the direct appropriations into an authorization of appropriations. The legislation allows for teaching health centers to receive funding through the normal appropriations process with proper Congressional oversight. Mr. Chairman, many Members of this Congress have supported medical education--I certainly count myself among them--including graduate medical education for children's hospital programs. However, in her testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee earlier this year, HHS Secretary Sebelius stated that the President's fiscal year 2012 budget eliminates children's hospital graduate medical education programs because they duplicate the teaching center funds in ObamaCare. Mr. Chairman, is this the future of medical education that we want for our children? Teaching our medical professionals in clinics that might not be equipped to properly train them to handle emergency situations versus in hospitals regarded as centers of excellence like Children's Healthcare of Atlanta in my own home State of Georgia. This is why the appropriations process is so important--we need congressional oversight to help decide what the priorities of tomorrow should be. This Congress, the 112th Congress--is focused on reining in spending and reducing our deficit. We cannot do the job of the American people and make the spending cuts necessary unless the legislative branch has oversight over Federal spending. If this is truly the people's House, give back what the last Congress gave away--control over the budget. If this body is sincere in its wishes to restore fiscal sanity in this country, I see no reason why this body should not be voting in a bipartisan manner to prevent this President--or any President, for that matter--from spending our Nation into insolvency. So I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1216. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his bill and for yielding me this time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chairman, sitting in my office and listening to this debate, and I can't help but feel that this is nothing but a bunch of demagoguery on the part of our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle. I take this opportunity to oppose the amendment, but, more importantly, to ask my colleagues to stop this demagoguery in regard to throwing Grandma under the bus in reference to the Medicare program and what our side of the aisle has proposed in the Republican budget. You know, the average age of this body is 58 years old. Almost all of us are Grandma and Grandpa, and you are running these ads all across the Nation, I guess, particularly in New York 26, showing a reasonable facsimile of our fantastic chairman of the Budget Committee pushing Grandma in a wheelchair off the cliff. Look, New York 26 is over. You don't need any more votes. Stop all this demagoguery. You have done nothing in regard to the Medicare program. What is there in the 2012 budget, in the Obama budget, that does anything toward trying to solve the Medicare program, which will be bankrupt in 2024 if nothing is done? That is the total irresponsibility and the hypocrisy of this side of the aisle, Madam Chairman. And the responsible side of the aisle is the Republican side of the aisle which says, look, let's save this program for our children and our grandchildren, guarantee, protect and strengthen it for Grandma and Grandpa, our current seniors, and not only the current seniors who are 65 and those who are disabled and already on the Medicare program, but anybody who will come into the Medicare program within the next 10 years. And, you know, Madam Chairman, at that point, in 2022, you will have about 65 million people on the Medicare program as we know it, traditional Medicare; and they will be on that program until their natural death and many of them, thank God, because of our great health care system in this country, will live to be 90 years old. So this idea of killing Medicare is an absolute misinterpretation, and you know it. You are misleading the American people. This program that we are proposing, and it's a proposal, it's something that we can work together on both sides of the aisle, we can negotiate, you know, it's not set in stone--but what we say, what Speaker Boehner says, what Chairman Ryan says is, look, let's try this program in 2022 where people who are coming into Medicare at age 65, many of whom are working and in excellent health, we will simply give them a premium support, but not a voucher in their hands, but to send to the insurance company of their choice. Let them get their medical care where Members of Congress get their medical care. Let them have the same options to choose from, Madam Chairman. That's what's this is about. And the average, if it is $8,000, it will be adjusted every year for inflation and that average 8,000 will be higher for an individual who comes into the Medicare program at age 65 that is already sick, that already has heart disease or diabetes or is on dialysis. It's somebody, as they get older, that premium support will increase. This is the way we save the Medicare program; and, oh, yes, by the way, folks like us, like members of the subcommittee, our premium support will be significantly less because we are not Warren Buffett, but we can afford to pay more, and we should pay more. If that's $4,000 a year more, so be it. We save the program for those who need it the most, those who are middle- and low-income seniors, and that is the compassionate thing to do. So, colleagues, stop this demagoguery. Let's get together, let's work together and solve this problem once and for all. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado, my good friend, for yielding. I would just rhetorically ask, and maybe he would like to definitively answer, how much of the windfall profit taxes, if you will, against Big Oil, Big Pharma, big anything, are you going to put back into the Medicare program? And, by the way, how much of the Medicare Advantage cuts that came from ObamaCare are actually going back into the Medicare program as we know it?

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act, and I thank Natural Resources Committee Chairman Hastings for yielding me time. At a time when hardworking Georgians are paying $3.88 per gallon at the pump, it is critically important that we enact commonsense energy production policies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has adopted policies that have stifled energy production in this country, and have led to 12,000 jobs lost during the moratorium imposed in the Gulf of Mexico last year. Mr. Chair, H.R. 1229 will end the ongoing ``de facto'' moratorium caused by the White House's refusal to approve permits in the Gulf by requiring the Department of the Interior to grant permits for exploration of oil and natural gas. This commonsense legislation will create thousands of jobs, help recapture $4.7 million that the Federal Government is losing on a daily basis from a lack of energy production, and will lead us to greater energy independence. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1229.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. I do rise in very strong support of this rule as well as the underlying bill, H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. I would also like to commend our colleague from New Jersey, Representative Chris Smith, for his leadership on this legislation and for his steadfast pro-life stance throughout his tenure in Congress. Madam Speaker, as a practicing OB/GYN physician for nearly 30 years, I believe that all life is sacred. The issue of abortion is a very personal issue for me as it is for many people across the country and for many Members of this body. However, that is not why we are considering this legislation on the House floor today. Instead, we are here to answer one simple question: Should American tax dollars be used to fund abortions? When an elective choice can decide life and death, should the Federal Government be allowed to use tax dollars to pay for that choice? Madam Speaker, H.R. 3 is a bill that seeks to set right what the last Congress got wrong: to ensure that abortions are not funded by taxpayer dollars. At its very base level, H.R. 3 simply codifies the Hyde Amendment, which has been enacted in some form or another as an appropriations rider since fiscal year 1976. Through this legislation today, we will make permanent the prohibition on Federal funding for abortions, thereby eliminating the inherent vulnerability that riders like the Hyde Amendment face as part of the annual appropriations process. Furthermore, H.R. 3 codifies the Hyde-Dr. Dave Weldon conscience clause that has protected health care providers from discrimination by State and local governments for simply refusing to provide, to pay for or to even refer for abortion. Additionally, H.R. 3 will allow those health care providers who choose not to perform abortions legal recourse if they face, as they often do, overt discrimination. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3 also prevents Federal funds from being used for tax credits that subsidize health insurance coverage that includes elective abortion through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, so-called ``ObamaCare.'' One of the many problems with this law ObamaCare is that there is no statutory language prohibiting premium assistance from being used for abortions despite many efforts of House and Senate Republicans during the last Congress. H.R. 3 provides the assurance that our taxpayer dollars will not be used in any form of Federal subsidies for abortion coverage. So, Madam Speaker, as a father and as an OB/GYN physician who has delivered over 5,000 babies, I will be voting to ensure that the Federal Government does not use taxpayer dollars for any elective abortion. I ask all of my colleagues to support this rule as well as the underlying bill, H.R. 3.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day in the history of our country. I can't remember a better day. Thinking back to maybe 1980, when our ice hockey team beat Russia in the semifinals and went on to win the gold, that was at the height of the Cold War. Shortly after, Nikita Khrushchev took off his shoe and said, ``We will bury you.'' Yes, that was a great day that we had back in 1980. But today, the ``Finally, we got him'' moment in regard to, yes, I am talking about Osama bin Laden. I want to take an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to commend the President, commend the CIA, commend our military, commend the Navy SEALs, the brave men and women that effected this. They have been working hard. And let's not forget the intelligence officers that worked so diligently at Guantanamo Bay, at Gitmo, not torturing but getting intelligence, finding out who that courier was, the best friend of Osama bin Laden that lived in his neighborhood in Pakistan. Intelligence is how we got him. It's a great day. Let's all take credit. Let's commend the President. We should be tremendously proud today of this accomplishment--this guy, the monster that caused 3,000 people to die on 9/11 and 17 on the USS Cole. And the men and women that have given their lives defending this country since then, God bless them.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I was listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The ranking member of the Budget Committee, our friend from Maryland, talked about the fact that, according to his poster, the Bush tax cuts in the years 2000 to 2006 caused the loss of an untold number of jobs. I have my own statistics which basically show, during that period of time and despite those tax cuts, we had an increased revenue of something like $700 billion. Now, I'll check my facts with his facts later on, Mr. Chairman, but how in the world could you produce $700 billion of additional revenue when you lose jobs? It's not possible. The fact is that those tax cuts created a broader base, albeit at a lower rate, and they generated more revenue. That's exactly what the chairman of the Budget Committee is talking about in his Path to Prosperity. Another one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle stood up and said, according to this budget plan--at least, thank God, we have one. The Democrats couldn't produce one last year because of their fear of the political consequences--Medicare as we know it, by the year 2022, will disappear. How is that possible when, by that time, there will probably be 75 million people on Medicare as we know it before we will go to this premium support plan that Chairman Ryan has proposed? Our friends on the other side keep saying, You keep giving tax breaks to the rich. Well, according to this plan, the people who are in the top 2 percent of income will only get 30 percent of the premium support, an average of $8,000 a year. The people in the top 8 percent would get 50 percent. So you keep wanting to beat on the producers in society that create the jobs. Support this plan. It's a great budget.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank my chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, at least some Members of this body can remember ads back years ago touting the miraculous benefits of Sal Hepatica and Carter's Little Liver Pills. Probably all of the Members can remember, because it was just a year ago, Andy Griffith touting the new health care reform bill. And those of us who are on Medicare remember getting those glossy mail outs, very expensive, slick-looking ads touting the benefits that ObamaCare has brought to Medicare, even though the new bill, the new entitlement creation took something like $550 billion out of Medicare, and yet they had the audacity to send these ads out, these fliers saying that it improved Medicare. ObamaCare improves Medicare; go figure. Well, that is a concern here. That is why I am standing in strong support of Chairman Pitts' bill, H.R. 1217. The Prevention and Public Health Fund is established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, for prevention, wellness, and public health activities authorized in the Public Health Service Act and administered by Secretary Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. But she can use those funds in any way she deems appropriate as long as she says it is for public health. Can it pay for political TV advertising for President Obama ahead of the 2012 elections? Absolutely she could. Nothing could stop her; the Congress couldn't as long as she deems it is necessary for public health. Pay for thousands of signs in communities all across the country declaring that PPACA is a success, nothing could stop this Secretary, or any Secretary from doing so, as long as they call it for public health. No, not even Congress. And as the chairman said, Mr. Chairman, the amount of $17 billion, almost $18 billion, is just a down payment, if you will, because in perpetuity $2 billion a year continues to be appropriated. And you do that with a bill that quite honestly this Member thinks will be declared within a year and a half, hopefully sooner, unconstitutional. So we are spending money that is absolutely unnecessary at a time when we are sitting here with $14 trillion worth of debt and listening to the Secretary of the Treasury say within 6 weeks we are going to have to raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow more money. And here we are spending $17 billion, with a ``B,'' and that is not just chump change by any stretch of the imagination. Last year in 2010, the CDC actually spent some of $500 million to promote an increase in the excise tax on tobacco to the States; basically saying to the States, you need to make sure you raise taxes on tobacco.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the chairman for yielding me this additional time. Let me just conclude that clearly this is a necessary bill to let Congress once again have the opportunity to control spending. That is our responsibility. That is our constitutional right. That's what the American people want. I think the chairman is absolutely right with this bill, and I fully support it. I urge all of my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to honor the Cartersville Purple Hurricanes baseball club, which has been named the Program of the Decade by the Georgia Dugout Club and is being honored as such on Monday, April 11th. Having won 8 Region titles and 5 State Championship titles, what a decade it has been for the Purple Hurricanes. Throughout their reign of dominance, this team has consistently performed at an extraordinarily high level. The Purple Hurricanes won 60 consecutive Region games from 2005-2010, 33 consecutive playoff games from 2001-2004, and 76 playoff games in the decade. They finished the 2007 season ranked number 9 in the Nation by Baseball America, and in 2009 finished ranked number 7 by the USA Today. Many players from this program have gone on to excel at the next level, and 7 Cartersville players have been selected in the Major League Draft during this tenure. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Coach Stewart Chester, who has been leading the Cartersville program throughout their decade of dominance, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Cartersville Purple Hurricanes on this momentous occasion.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I come before this government-regulated microphone, but I do come in strong support of this resolution. I would like to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Mr. Walden, for his leadership to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from implementing regulations on the Internet. As a member of the subcommittee, I'm proud to be a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 37 because I believe that it is absolutely necessary that we invoke the Congressional Review Act to nullify the implementation of net neutrality because it will negatively impact our economy. It is time that we rein in the FCC under its current leadership and ensure the continued growth of the Internet without the handcuffs of net neutrality. Mr. Speaker, the sole reason the Internet has been able to grow unfettered is due to the absence of unnecessary regulations, and I fear that the FCC's so-called open Internet order will stifle innovation and investment, and it will prevent continued job creation within the broadband industry. Unfortunately, the FCC has chosen to act without quantifiable statistics about the need for such regulation. In fact, in the FCC's order, the commission admitted that it conducted no--and I repeat no-- market analysis on the demonstration of any actual problem rather than mere speculation. In our subcommittee hearing with all five FCC commissioners on February 16, Commissioner McDowell testified that this order is not necessary, it will cause more harm for the industry than it will prevent, and that the FCC does not have the authority to move forward on this order. He is not alone in this analysis. Former FCC Chairman William Kennard, who was appointed by President Clinton, said back in 1999 that the ``deregulatory, competitive approach'' has led to the innovation in the Internet that now benefits our country, as my colleagues have pointed out. Mr. Speaker, this is precisely why we are here today. I am reminded of the famous line in William Shakespeare's ``The Tempest.'' He wrote: ``What's past is prologue.'' Our policy of deregulation of the Internet has yielded tremendous benefits and growth, and I strongly believe that the FCC's order will undermine that growth over the past 15 years.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, this amendment would, in short, be an avenue for the EPA to move forward with back-door global warming regulations regardless of any relevant facts and circumventing the will of Congress and the public. EPA should not be authorized to move forward with back-door global warming regulations. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I want to point out to my colleague that the EPA, as I think I previously said, but just let me repeat it, the EPA has already concluded that greenhouse gases pose no public health emergency. And they stated: ``Current and projected ambient greenhouse gas concentrations remain well below published thresholds for any direct adverse health effect such as respiratory or toxic effects.'' I yield such time as he may consume, Madam Chair, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).