Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed from H.R. 1513.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of amendment #45, offered by Mr. Gohmert. This amendment clarifies that the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) do not deny the writ of habeas corpus--or any Constitutional rights--to those detained in the United States under the AUMF who are entitled to such rights. Mr. Chair, this amendment is necessary because while the intent in the FY '12 NDAA was not to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without access to legal representation, some have misconstrued it as such. Simply put, this misunderstanding must end today. I support this amendment because I believe that providing for the safety and security of United States citizens is the paramount responsibility of the federal government. As we continue to fight the Global War on Terror, we must provide the President, the intelligence community, and our troops with all of the tools necessary to carry out this duty. Clearly, we must do this within the framework of our Constitution, and make certain that the Constitutional rights provided for our citizens are not violated. Mr. Chair, in order to guarantee our citizens' Constitutional rights, I am further pleased that the text of H.R. 4388, the Right to Habeas Corpus Act--which was authored by Mr. Rigell of Virginia and of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor--was included in the FY '13 NDAA. Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution states `The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' This legislation affirms that and goes on to state that ``Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107 40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112 81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.'' Mr. Chair, with the adoption of Mr. Gohmert's amendment and inclusion of Mr. Rigell's legislation, we are taking the steps necessary to ensure the protection of our citizens' rights, while at the same time denying terrorists the same privileges. Former Attorneys General Ed Meese and Mike Mukasey--as well as other high ranking national security officials from both the Reagan and Bush Administrations--requested in a May 9 letter to the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee that ``As the House begins consideration of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, we urge you to ensure that attempts to exploit misconceptions about the NDAA are not successful in harming U.S. national security.'' Clearly they are referencing the misunderstanding stemming from the FY '12 NDAA. They further wrote that ``the FY '12 NDAA included an affirmation of the detention authority provided by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Given the President's plan to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan and the continuing threat posed by groups like al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, this affirmation was a critical step in reinforcing the military's legal authorities to combat terror.'' As it relates to the other end of the spectrum--providing terrorists the same rights as would be conferred to U.S. citizens, as would be the case if the amendment authored by Mr. Smith and Mr. Amash were to be adopted--their letter states that ``. . . rewarding terrorists with greater rights for making it to the United States would actually incentivize them to come to our shores, or to recruit from within the United States, where they pose the greatest risk to the American people. Such a result is perverse.'' Mr. Chair, I am glad that because of our actions today, we are making clear the distinction between the rights provided our citizens and those provided to terrorists, while stating unequivocally that U.S. citizens will not be stripped of their habeas privileges. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Gohmert's amendment.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Granger Amendment #44 to H.R. 4310 that was included in the En Bloc Amendment #3. As one of the co-chairs of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, I believe this amendment embodies the spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 in providing assistance to Taiwan for its own defense. Through the TRA, we are able to conduct arms sales to Taipei. Over the past 30 years, we have done this time and time again. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has failed to proceed on Taiwan's top request--the F 16 C/D aircraft. Taiwan has an aging fixed wing aircraft fleet, and with the growing military gap across the Taiwan Strait, it is critical that we sell them this aircraft. The Granger Amendment does just that by requiring the President to move forward on the sale of no fewer than 66 F 16 C/Ds. Mr. Chair, the Taiwan Caucus sent letters in 2010 and 2011 urging the White House to move forward on this matter. In 2010, 136 bipartisan Members signed that letter, and in 2011, 181 Members joined in the effort. Unfortunately, those letters were received with mostly silence. However, the White House cannot ignore this amendment. I urge my colleagues to uphold our commitment to Taiwan and support the Granger Amendment.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, during National Police Week, to honor Probation Officer Tiffany Bishop. Officer Bishop was fatally wounded August 31, 2011, during a training exercise at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson, Georgia. At the time of her death, she had served the Georgia Department of Corrections with distinction for six months. Tiffany was born in Waycross, Georgia and attended Union Grove High School, where she was president of the drama club. She graduated with honors from Georgia State College and University, where she earned a bachelor's and Master's degree in criminal justice. Officer Bishop was recognized this week on the Capitol steps at the 31st Annual Peace Officers' Memorial Service. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this fallen officer, and all those who have died in service to their communities.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Young Amendment #141 to H.R. 4310 that was included as part of En Bloc Amendment #6. I commend my colleague from Alaska for his leadership on this issue, and like him, I agree that the Secretary of Defense should expedite completion of the study of our nation's strategic ports in last year's National Defense Authorization Act. One of the ports that is included in this study is the Port of Savannah in my home State of Georgia. The Port of Savannah is the nation's fastest- growing and fourth-busiest port. It serves as the most important infrastructure target in Georgia and the single-largest economic development issue for the state. The economic impact that this port has is astounding. The Port of Savannah alone accounted for $9.5 billion in shipments to the Metro Atlanta region in 2011. Furthermore, the effect of both the Port of Savannah and the Port of Brunswick have on Georgia's economy are staggering. According to a recent University of Georgia study, these two ports support more than 350,000 jobs--which is 1 out of every 12 jobs across the state. Mr. Chair, simply put, the Port of Savannah has is critical for economic development, not only in my home state, but throughout the southeast region. I am pleased that it was included on the list to study by DoD, and I believe this study needs to be completed this fiscal year. I urge my colleagues to support the Young Amendment.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 288 on adoption of the Rehberg Amendment No. 59 to H.R. 4310, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Patty Mozley for 43 years of dedicated service to the students of The Walker School in Marietta, Georgia. Patty moved to Marietta in 1969 and began teaching third grade, and she held that position for 17 years. She also served as interim principal and spent the last 26 years as an enrollment adviser. An avid playwright, Mozley also began The Walker School's drama program, writing and directing the first script. Before her retirement, The Walker School renamed the studio theater in Mozley's honor. Students, parents, and communities need more educators like her. She has inspired countless lives, and she has fostered a love for learning in her students. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Patty Mozley's outstanding accomplishments and her unwavering commitment to education.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a distinguished community leader in Cartersville, Georgia, Dr. Joe Edwards is celebrating his 25th anniversary as pastor of the Church Liberty Square. Under his direction, Liberty Square has grown into a ``life-based'' church complex, boasting a K 12 school, family home communities, and a food distribution center that serves the needy. Pastor Edwards is a man who lives his faith; he and members of the Church at Liberty Square have positively transformed their community. Pastor Edwards' devotion to Christ's ministry is an example to us all. I wish him continued blessings in his work. There is no doubt that Cartersville is a better place because of Pastor Edwards. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Pastor Edwards and the Church at Liberty Square.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Patty Mozley for her 43 years of dedicated service to the students of The Walker School in Marietta, Georgia. Mozley moved to Marietta in 1969 and began teaching third grade at The Walker School, a position she held for 17 years. She also served as interim principal, and spent her last 26 years as an enrollment advisor. An avid playwright, Mozley also began The Walker School's drama program, writing and directing the first script. Before her retirement, The Walker School renamed its studio theatre in Mozley's honor. Students, parents, and communities need more educators like her. She has inspired countless lives and fostered a love for learning in her students. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Mozley's outstanding accomplishments and her unwavering commitment to education.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of amendment No. 8, the Bartlett-Flake amendment, to H.R. 4310. The amendment will prevent the DOD from requiring contractors to sign expensive union-favoring project labor agreements as a condition of winning Federal construction contracts for projects authorized by the bill. Under a PLA, the construction firm must agree to sign a union collective bargaining agreement, whether it's unionized or not, before it can bid on a government project. PLAs can result in increased costs for contractors and taxpayers by as much as 18 percent and cause unnecessary procurement delays and political favoritism in the Federal procurement process. At a time when the Department of Defense is facing devastating across-the-board cuts, it simply does not make sense to encourage PLAs. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Ellison/Conyers amendment. Simply put, if the goal is to deprive the Marine Corps of the Short Take-Off Vertical Landing variant of the F 35, designed to replace its aging Harriers and F 18's--while simultaneously increasing the per unit cost of Joint Strike Fighters--then this amendment achieves it. The STOVL variant is desperately needed for the execution of short takeoffs and vertical landings in combat deployments aboard amphibious assault ships and in austere conditions ashore. It will provide the Marines with a much more capable tactical fighter force that meets the future threats facing our nation. This misguided amendment is opposed by the Department of Defense and the Marine Corps, not only because it would invest in yesterday's technology at the expense of tomorrow's, but because the F 35B has performed exceedingly well over the past 18 months, testing ahead of schedule in both 2011 and 2012. Because the F 35B is urgently needed by the Marine Corps and our international partners, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to urge my colleagues to support my nonbinding amendment, No. 39, which would express the sense of Congress that active duty military personnel who live in or are stationed in Washington, D.C. should be exempt from existing District of Columbia firearm restrictions. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the District of Columbia has historically had some of the most restrictive firearm regulations in the Nation. In fact, in June of 2008, the Supreme Court--in the District of Columbia v. Heller case--ruled that the District's handgun ban and requirements that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock is unconstitutional. In that decision it also said that the Second Amendment is applicable to an individual, not just a militia. Well, just 1 month later, the District of Columbia enacted the Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008, which places onerous restrictions on the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms, thus violating the spirit, if not the letter, by which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in D.C. v. Heller. Mr. Chairman, there are approximately 40,000 servicemen and -women across all branches of the Armed Forces that either live in or they're stationed on active duty within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Indeed, many of them are stationed at the Pentagon. Unless these individuals are granted a waiver as serving in a law enforcement role, they are subject to the District of Columbia's onerous and highly restrictive laws on the possession of firearms. Mr. Chairman, there are servicemen and -women who have been prosecuted because of this unconstitutional prohibition, despite their training in the use of firearms. This is a travesty. Studies have clearly shown that firearms are a crime deterrent. The de facto handgun ban leaves law-abiding citizens unable to protect themselves from violent acts or individuals breaking the law. This amendment recognizes that the D.C. handgun law, especially in regard to trained servicemen and -women, punishes individuals well equipped to protect themselves and others while emboldening perpetrators of violent crime. Mr. Chairman, if we trust these brave men and women to defend our country, why do we not trust them to legally exercise their Second Amendment rights? I would like to note that the NRA is supportive of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that, first and foremost, this is a sense of Congress resolution, nonbinding resolution. It's not to be, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, confused with any other ban or amendment that she referenced. It's certainly not to be confused with H.R. 645, a bill that would eliminate D.C.'s gun safety laws, which she was so concerned about in the last couple of years. This is just simply saying, very clearly, Mr. Chairman, and especially to the governing body, the City Council and Mayor of the District of Columbia, look, we want to help you. We are recommending that you take this action. We're not forcing you to do this. This is, again, as I say, a nonbinding resolution. It is just the sense of Congress, which, after all, has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. We want to say to the governing body, we think it's a darn good idea for you to enact this waiver for these military men and women, 40,000 of them, as I say, stationed either in D.C., at the Pentagon, at Fort Myer in Virginia or Maryland, that have the ability and the training, the necessary judgment and mentality to actually help the 500,000 residents of the District of Columbia. I don't think that my colleague and any colleagues on the other side of the aisle who might be in opposition to this, I think that opposition is misguided. They're missing an opportunity to support something that would be good, indeed, good for the safety of the people of the District of Columbia. If we criminalize the possession of firearms, then it might be a trite and hackneyed expression, but only criminals then would have the right to bear arms. Now, this bill that the District of Columbia passed in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision, Heller v. District of Columbia, that upheld the Second Amendment rights for individuals and said that what law existed in the District of Columbia was unconstitutional. So they come up with some arcane, very difficult, almost impossible rules and regulations in regard to the possession of firearms so that they, de facto, make it impossible. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support this amendment, sense of Congress, nonbinding. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act. I commend Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan for the leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. This reconciliation legislation will make necessary and strategic reforms to a number of mandatory programs to better ensure that those most in need of government assistance receive it, instead of individuals who are not eligible or indeed may be gaming the system. With these reforms, we will find nearly $328 billion in savings over 10 years. Furthermore, H.R. 5652 will offset $78 billion in cuts to the Department of Defense as a result of sequestration. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that there are two provisions that I authored that have been included in H.R. 5652. The first is H.R. 5, which seeks to address the rising cost of health care through meaningful, fair, and balanced medical liability reform. The second is H.R. 1683, the State Flexibility Act, which seeks to correct a problem created by the failed stimulus and ObamaCare. This provision gives States the opportunity to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicaid program. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 5652.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart as the delivery ceremony of the last F 22 Raptor will take place next Wednesday in Marietta, Georgia, my hometown, tail No. 195--far short of what our Air Force needs. Over the last three decades, the Cobb County community has watched the F 22 grace our skies as thousands of our citizens have worked steadfastly to make the Marietta production a model line. Many of our neighbors have indeed had a direct hand in producing the most capable fighter jet in history. The program has been a critical component of America's industrial base and a source of economic strength, creating 25,000 American jobs in 44 States and representing more than $12 billion in annual economic activity. The F 22 protects our citizens and our soldiers, and it deters America's enemies. Its legacy will be a credit to our community for years to come. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Lockheed Martin and the F 22 program.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize this day, April 18, as a day of honor for Journeymen Linemen. Accordingly, I have introduced H. Res. 561 to recognize April 18, 2012, as National Journeymen Linemen Day in order to honor these brave men and women for their contributions to protect public safety. Journeymen Linemen are often the first responders during a storm or other catastrophic event, which means these brave men and women are often required to make the scene safe for other public safety heroes. Linemen work with thousands of volts of electricity high atop power lines every day of the year in order to protect the nation from dangerous electrical currents. The profession of Journeymen Linemen is steeped in tradition and family, both professionally and personally. Generations ago, Linemen climbed poles using hooks and blocks, but as technology has grown through the years, innovative Linemen have pioneered advancements with innovative materials, altering the direction of line work for the future. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring the extraordinary commitment and courage demonstrated everyday by the nation's Journeymen Linemen.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize this day, April 18, as a day of honor for Journeymen Linemen. Accordingly, I have introduced H. Res. 561 to recognize April 18, 2012, as National Journeymen Linemen Day in order to honor these brave men and women for their contributions to protect public safety. Journeymen Linemen are often the first responders during a storm or other catastrophic event, which means these brave men and women are often required to make the scene safe for other public safety heroes. Linemen work with thousands of bolts of electricity high atop power lines every day of the year in order to protect the nation from dangerous electrical currents. The profession of Journeymen Linemen is steeped in tradition and family, both professionally and personally. Generations ago, Linemen climbed poles using hooks and blocks, but as technology has grown through the years, innovative Linemen have pioneered advancements with innovative materials, altering the direction of line work for the future. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring the extraordinary commitment and courage demonstrated everyday by the nation's Journeymen Linemen.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding, and I thank him for his kind words. I'm happy to share the time with him tonight and plan to remain here on the House floor for the rest of this hour. I'll make some comments now and yield back to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, and maybe he'll yield some additional time to me later in the hour. But, you know, I couldn't help but notice in the previous hour which was allotted to our Democratic colleagues, their leadership hour, they went first tonight, and they chose to talk about the SNAP program within the Department of Agriculture. And of course, SNAP is an acronym for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which was formerly known, I think more people would commonly know it as the food stamp program. And they spent the whole hour talking about the unintended consequences of cutting discretionary Federal spending and reducing government bureaucracy and bloatedness and saying that when you do that, of course, you hurt the poor and the nearly poor, that they desperately need these programs. They made some legitimate points, of course. We're talking about health care in our hour and, specifically, about the passage of ObamaCare almost 2 years ago, indeed, a little more than 2 years ago now to create a whole new entitlement program for people, the uninsured, not the folks that were covered under safety net programs like the program for children, the SCHIP program it's called, the health care program for the poor, Medicaid, certainly not the program for our seniors and our disabled Americans under Medicare, but for folks that were somewhere in the middle that maybe couldn't afford or weren't offered health insurance by their employer. But they never talked about the unintended consequences of what would happen. I'm sure our colleagues didn't intentionally pass a 2,600-page bill that would deliberately hurt anybody. I don't think anybody on either side of the aisle in any Congress would do that, any administration would do that. But we physician Members, the gentleman from Louisiana, myself, and others that have worked in the health care industry, all of our--most of our--professional lives before we got to Congress, understood far better and knew exactly what the unintended consequences would be of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what the gentleman from Louisiana's been talking about and pointing out in the poster presentation, the slide presentation that he has made. I could probably take the rest of the hour talking about the unintended consequences and list them. My good colleague and our friend on the Senate side, the chairman of the Senate Policy Committee, also a physician, orthopedic surgeon from Wyoming, Dr. Barrasso, just recently came out with a white paper on health care policies dated March 13, so just about a month ago. And Dr. Barrasso, in that paper, Mr. Speaker, lists 10 different unintended consequences. The gentleman from Louisiana's already mentioned a couple, gone over a couple; but I'd like to just take a few minutes before yielding back to him, a go over a few of the promises that he has not yet mentioned. One, and this is a quote from President Obama: ``I will protect Medicare.'' In a 2009 address to Congress, President Obama promised that he would ``protect Medicare.'' Well, the President's health care law, however--Dr. Fleming may have mentioned this--takes more than $500 billion from the Medicare program and uses that money. Now, he said, and the Democrat majority at the time said, well, you know, we're strengthening Medicare. But over $500 billion, more than a 10 percent cut per year in Medicare over a 10-year period of time, it took to create this new entitlement program. The Medicare actuary has actually written that the Medicare cuts cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays such as the coverage expansion under this PPACA and to extend the Medicare trust fund. You can't pay for two things with the same amount of money. Indeed, I wish we could. Then maybe folks wouldn't have to be on food stamps, as an example. The Congressional Budget Office, on that same point, wrote, Medicare provisions in the President's health care plan, quote, and, again, this is the CBO, ``would not enhance the ability of the government to pay for future Medicare benefits.'' President Obama actually admitted in an interview, you can't say that you are saving on Medicare and then spending the money twice. That's what the President said. But that's exactly what the law does. It spends the same money twice, undermining, unfortunately, a great Medicare program that needs to be strengthened and protected. That was one of the promises broken, promises made, but not kept, as Dr. Barrasso, Senator Barrasso, pointed out. Let me add one more. This is No. 5 of the 10 that Dr. Barrasso mentioned in his white paper of last month from the policy committee on the Senate side. Candidate Obama said there was no need for a mandate. This is back in 2008 in that campaign against Senator Hillary Clinton. Candidate Obama opposed a mandate to buy insurance, and made it one of the hallmarks of his primary campaign. He claimed that penalizing people for not buying health insurance--listen to this, Mr. Speaker-- was like, and I quote, ``solving homelessness by mandating everyone buy a house.'' He said, President Obama, Senator Obama at the time, Candidate Obama, solving homelessness by mandating everyone buy a house. Well, this is like solving the uninsured problem by mandating that all the rest of us pay for health insurance for a lot of people that could afford to buy health insurance but just simply did not want it. I don't know how many millions of people make more than $50,000 a year or $75,000 a year that really didn't want, don't want, would rather pay as they go. I don't recommend it. Dr. Fleming doesn't recommend it, Mr. Speaker. We think they ought to have some minimal coverage and certainly catastrophic coverage; but this is their right, their liberty to choose if they want to not have that coverage. And President Obama's health care law, as we all know now, created an unprecedented Federal requirement for all citizens to purchase a product merely because they exist, because they're living and breathing. And not just a product. Under this bill when it's fully implemented in 2014, the minimal coverage requirement, as the gentleman from Louisiana pointed out, wouldn't allow them to, let's say, have a mini-med policy, as many of the franchisees do across this country in the fast-food industry. They all had to be granted waivers. So here again, another promise made and not kept. I have a couple more that I'll get to maybe later on in the hour, but just to point that out. And clearly, the Supreme Court, I think, now understands much of that in the testimony they heard a couple weeks ago. So I'll yield back to my colleague and stick with him during the remaining portion of the time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, continuing on the line of reasoning that Dr. Fleming just outlined in talking about not indexing these benefits for inflation, in fact, another thing that needs to be pointed out is that under current law in creating these exchanges and in trying to help people who are uninsured because it's not affordable to them, we, the taxpayers, are going to subsidize people who purchase health insurance on these State exchanges even if they make up to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. For a family of four, that's $85,000 to $90,000 a year. If John Q. Public knew that we were forcing them to subsidize the purchase of health insurance for people making up to $90,000 a year, they would be appalled; but that, in fact, is the case. In just continuing with what my friend from Louisiana was talking about, the other thing is that the law also expands the Medicaid program. Some States in past years, when times were better, were covering people on the Medicaid program at more than 100 percent of the Federal poverty level--indeed, some up to 185 percent or maybe 225 percent of the Federal poverty level when they could afford it. Yet to actually say in times like these that we are going to force the States to cover people up to 133 percent of the Federal poverty level when they can barely afford to cover at the 100 percent level is an unfunded and, probably, unconstitutional mandate. Mr. Speaker, as you know and as my colleagues know on both sides of the aisle, this was part of the argument before the Supreme Court, as was that more publicized argument against requiring individuals to engage in commerce under the rules of the Commerce Clause. So that's a huge problem. As Dr. Fleming points out, it will become even more of a problem because it's not indexed for inflation, and you will have more and more people being subsidized. I want to get back, though, if the gentleman will allow me a little bit more time, to those failed promises that I discussed a little earlier. In the Republican health care policy report from orthopaedic surgeon and Senator John Barrasso, which he put out just last month, let me go straight to No. 10. We mentioned a couple. This is broken promise No. 10. Get this, colleagues, and this is a quote from President Obama, our 44th President: These negotiations will be on C SPAN. Candidate Obama promised to televise all health care negotiations on C SPAN. The process that created the President's health care plan was plagued, unfortunately--and it wasn't on C SPAN--with backroom deals like the Cornhusker kickback, Gator aid and the Louisiana Purchase, cutting special deals with Senators from certain States. You don't have to be a genius to figure out what those three States are. The President, indeed, even conceded the process--and he said-- legitimately raised concerns, not just among my opponents but also among supporters, that we just don't know what's going on; and it's an ugly process, and it looks like there are a bunch of backroom deals. Mr. Speaker, there were a bunch of backroom deals, and I think our colleagues are aware. We got a memo today from my committee, which is the Energy and Commerce Committee, and particularly from the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. We have been trying for almost 2 years--the committee staff on Energy and Commerce and on the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigations--to get information from the White House about all of these backroom deals that were cut, negotiated, during the process of getting buy-in from stakeholders that everybody in the country would recognize. Now, I'm not pointing fingers or saying that anybody necessarily did anything wrong; but there is our own American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, AARP, which represents 37 to 40 million seniors, and all of these advocacy stakeholder groups in these back rooms. Promises were made, and there were policy changes in the law in exchange for something special for them. Again, Congressman Fleming talked about sausage-making and the legislative process, but the President promised that all of that would be out in the open. Indeed, he said it would even be televised on C SPAN. Here again, that's promise No. 10. That's all we're asking from the White House, from the Office of Health Care Reform--I think Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle was a director of that effort in the White House--and they have done nothing for the last 2 years but stonewall. We are going to continue to ask for documents of what went on behind closed doors so that we the people, the American people, can understand how this possibly could happen, what we now know are the unintended consequences. Dr. Fleming has pointed out in his presentation and in his slides with regard to the taxation and with regard to people thinking that if they like their health insurance they can keep it, only to find out that they can't. Whether they're on Medicare Advantage or whether they get their health insurance from an employer or whether they're working and paying $15 to $20 a week for a minimal coverage plan that has catastrophic protection without waivers, all of those plans will be taken away from people even though they like them. So, again, the problem is unbelievable, and the unintended consequences are unbelievable. Unfortunately, you'd better believe it, because it has happened.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for pointing that out, because the law very specifically says, if you employ 50 or more people, then you are going to be required by the Federal Government to provide for them a health insurance policy. Again, this is not just any health insurance coverage, but the one that the Federal Government, the uncle, demands that you provide. By the way, we will be voting on a bill, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday on this House floor--we, the Republican majority. It is a bill introduced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the gentleman from Virginia, to cut by 20 percent the taxes on those small businesses; and 30 percent of them are probably, in fact, owned and operated by women. To give them the opportunity to hire people and to stimulate the economy, that, in a way, is another subject, but in another way, it's actually the same subject, is it not?

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. That is exactly the point. They won't. If they've got 49 employees and they really need 53, they'll probably hire eight more--or whatever the math is--as half-time people with no benefits because they can't afford to cover their health insurance. It is a job destroyer. It's not a job creator. Then the other situation, of course, is for those that employ significantly more than 50. Maybe they've got 1,000 employees. Mr. Speaker, these companies are going to look at the mandated cost of coverage under ObamaCare, and they are going to say, You know what? Our bottom line will be a lot better if we just pay the darn fine. I think the fine is about $2,000 per year per employee that doesn't have health insurance coverage provided by them. And if they do provide the coverage under ObamaCare, as Dr. Fleming points out, Mr. Speaker, today that would be $12,000 a year probably for a family policy, but 10 years from now, it could be $18,000 a year. The only groups that are held harmless from that in the taxation of these so-called Cadillac plans are guess who? The unions, organized labor. These are all good points that people need to understand, the unintended consequences of the Federal Government trying to meddle in the marketplace and treat health care--one-sixth of the economy--just like it's any other business. You can't do that. The American people know it and they hate it.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I did want to make one other point. Actually, our colleague on the other side of the Capitol in the Senate, Senator Tom Coburn, OB/GYN and family practitioner, a great physician from Oklahoma--I hate that he's retiring at the end of this term. He has been a fantastic contributor to this debate. He has pointed out recently, Mr. Speaker, if people think that once the Medicare, the hospital insurance trust fund becomes insolvent, whether it's 2016 or 2020 or 2024, at the very latest, that doctors cannot be paid on their Medicare claims, their hospital part of Medicare, even if the Federal Government wanted to honor those claims because the trust fund is insolvent and pay those claims out of the general treasury as Dr. Coburn correctly points out, they cannot do it. And yet we are whistling past the graveyard, fiddling away while Rome is burning. That's what we're getting out of this administration.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this budget makes broad tax reforms that will prevent a $2 trillion tax increase from taking effect January 1, 2013, will spur economic growth by lowering taxes to individuals and job creators, and it proposes a 25 percent--25 percent--corporate tax rate to promote domestic economic growth. Mr. Chairman, it's time that we think of the next generation and not the next election. This Path to Prosperity charts a responsible course for the fiscal health of our country, and I urge all of my colleagues, support H. Con. Res. 112.