Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California in mentioning these categories of suffering seniors, people with Alzheimer's disease, chronic diabetes, heart disease, advanced stages of cancer, disability, or traumatic injury, I'd like to tell the gentleman and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the aisle always have these victims in our mind, in our heart, in our prayers. But we have the compassion and the honesty not to promote and present a ruse and false hope. That's what this so-called CLASS Act non-program does to these suffering individuals that suffer from these chronic medical conditions and disabilities. H.R. 1173 is an opportunity for this Congress to reverse one of the most costly coverups--yes, coverups--this administration has imposed upon the American taxpayer. The failure of this administration to implement the CLASS program came as no surprise to the many of us who had actually listened to the concerns from the unbiased actuaries--even the administration's own chief health actuary, Richard Foster, from CMS--about the certain failure of the CLASS program. The concerns, Mr. Speaker, were bipartisan during debate on the President's health care law, and even the President's own fiscal commission called for the program's repeal. So today we have the opportunity to finally get this failed program off of the books. This administration has spent millions of dollars and, yes, eight ways of Sunday, here they are, colleagues, eight ways, short of having yet another mandate that all people have coverage. They have tried to implement a program that never had a chance of being implemented, and today we're faced with an $80 billion hole in the budget that this administration claims would be filled by the implementation of the CLASS program. Listen, colleagues, key Senate Democrats, like Senator Harkin, believe that there is still one last option worth considering: another unconstitutional mandate on every American. In fact, in comments to reporters yesterday, Senator Harkin made the claim that the problem with the current CLASS program is that it is voluntary. In the opinion of the esteemed Senator, it needs to be mandatory. The need for long-term care reform is an important issue, and I am confident that solutions can be accomplished and that we can do this in a bipartisan way as they have been done before on this issue. We cannot, however, continue to deny the fact that the CLASS program is an abject failure and that its repeal is necessary today. I say to my Democrat colleagues, admit your failure. You rushed this provision into the health care law. I understand your compassion toward the late Senator Kennedy and your wanting this to be a legacy for him, but it was his staff that maybe misled the committee and the Democrat majority. Admit your failure. Get over it. Vote to repeal this failed CLASS Act, and live to fight another day. I recommend that we vote down this motion to recommit and for the bill to be repealed. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I stand in strong support of this resolution of disapproval of increasing the debt ceiling another $1.2 trillion. You've heard colleagues on both sides of the aisle, members of the Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished former chairman, Mr. Rangel, and others speak about why we have to raise the debt ceiling and that it's something that has been done over the years. Certainly, that's true. In the 9 years that I've been a Member--this being my 10th year--I've seen it happen many times. A lot of times it has passed, as Mr. Flake said, procedurally, and the public doesn't even know it. Now, I rarely disagree with my friend from Arizona, but I take a little bit of exception to what he said. He said the President has just stepped on the accelerator a bit. I would say $4.5 trillion in 3\1/2\ years is not stepping on the accelerator just a bit, Madam Speaker; that's putting the pedal to the metal. This has gotten so totally out of hand that it has got to stop. So, on our side, this is not a waste of time as the gentleman from Washington said. We're not just pandering to the Tea Party. Listen, we're paying attention to the conservatives in this country, who first got my attention in 1964, and to the conscience of a conservative: to just quit all this spending and get our fiscal house in order. We need to do that with the cooperation on both sides of the aisle. This resolution of disapproval, yes, it's going to fail--we understand that--but the American people need to know that there are Members of this Congress who are going to stand with them. Whether you call them Tea Party or whatever and try to denigrate them, we're going to stand with them and do the right thing. That's why I'm proud to take the time today. Yes, it is important. It may be the most important thing we do to finally say that we're not going to overspend; and then we say we're going to cut over the next 10 years but we'll borrow over the next year $1.2 trillion. It has got to end.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. My colleague has yielded to me a little bit of additional time, but I'm pretty much ready to wrap up, Madam Speaker. Honestly, this is what we need to do. This is what the American public wants us to do. It's time for us to get together in a bipartisan way to solve this, to solve Medicare, to solve Social Security. As former Speaker Newt Gingrich said on the campaign trail just yesterday: It's time to take Social Security off budget and have it stand alone, not let the Congress raid the trust fund. We now owe it $2.5 trillion. Then for the Secretary of the Treasury to say if we don't increase the debt ceiling that seniors are not going to get their Social Security checks, that's baloney.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the Civil Rights exhibit, ``The Road to Freedom,'' honors the legacy of Bishop L.M. Mitchell and the leadership exemplified by great faith and courage. As a successful entrepreneur himself, he exposed black entrepreneurship to Rome, Georgia. He taught practical principles to the church, inspiring the followers to open a pathway for some type of business of their own. Lattace Mack Mitchell was born December 18, 1872, in South Carolina, the son of a former slave. He joined the Fire Baptize Church in his early teens, and organized his first church on October 23, 1912, in a shoe shop with three members. He attended Gammon Theological Seminary in South Carolina, and due to the depression, he had lived in New Hampshire and New York before moving to Atlanta, Georgia. He came to Atlanta in May 1919, and organized the Overcoming Church of God. He placed a tent on the corner of Ira and Bass Street in Atlanta, and preached night and day without fear or favor. From this, the Overcoming Church of God was organized and grew throughout the Southeast and Northeast parts of the United States He was led to Rome, Georgia, in 1921. The most memorable anecdote was a racial incident--as told by Bishop Mitchell--that when he and his partners came from Atlanta to Rome for the first time and attempted to go South on Broad Street, somewhere between Sixth Avenue and the Cotton Block, he was followed by a police car. While approaching the Etowah River Bridge, he was stopped by a white officer from the Rome City Police and asked where he was going. As a native of Atlanta, he had been put in jail many times for speaking out on injustices, and when the officer spoke to him, he proceeded getting out of his car; showing no fear. He was a black man driving a 1921 Black Cadillac. He was 6'6'' and he wore a size 15 shoe. He pointed ahead and looking down on him, he told the officer, ``Do you see that bridge? I'm going to cross that bridge, but I don't know what the condition of it will be, when I return.'' He was letting the officer know that he was not afraid of whatever might happen to him. He knew it was a possibility that the bridge might be impassable when he needed to cross back over. Yet he had no fear in addressing a white officer during a segregated time in a small rural town in 1921. Bishop Mitchell said the officer looked up and told him to get back into his car and proceed across the bridge. He continued coming to Rome and became a resident. He found a handful of saints worshiping under the leadership of Mother Ricks. He began preaching, day and night, at 200 Nixon Avenue. At that time, the church was in financial trouble. He helped the church get out of debt, and afterwards, it was completely renovated. The church was named New Hope. Bishop Mitchell was an entrepreneur, investing in rental property throughout the Rome community. He understood the disadvantages of being a black businessman in the South, but that did not stop him from reaching his goals. No matter what the opposition, the success of the church can be attributed to the zeal and honesty of the man who is credited with founding the New Hope Overcoming Church in Rome, Georgia. He lived at 500 Wilson Avenue and served as leader of the Church of God for forty-six years, until his death in 1966. He was the first to be buried in the Shadyside Memorial Gardens, a cemetery located in South Rome. He was highly respected by his peers, who gave honorable remarks at his funeral services: Rev. J.L. Vaughn (Lovejoy Baptist Church), Rev. Clarence Tuggle (Thankful Baptist Church), Rev. G.P. Bowman (Mt. Calvary Baptist Church) and Rev. J.W. Baxter (Solomon Temple).

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the theme of the Civil Rights Era, ``Road to Freedom,'' honors the legacy in Leadership exemplified by Rev. J.L. Vaughn. While riding the bus to Main High School, the students witnessed Reverend Vaughn walking across the South Rome Bridge in Rome, Georgia, daily at 7 a.m. carrying a Bible under his arm. He was going to City Hall, the Courthouse, and to business owners in the downtown district to advocate for equal rights. The lunch counter sit- ins took place in Rome on March 28, 1963. When the Civil Rights Bill was passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, Reverend Vaughn used his pulpit to speak to the citizens and allowed white politicians to give a campaign speech in his church. The voting ballot was unfamiliar to black citizens and they had to be taught how to use it. He stressed the importance of exercising the right to vote. The legacy of Reverend Vaughn began long before he crossed over the bridge in the 1960's through times of racial struggles in Rome to be a voice for the Black community. He died in 1979, and Rome's first African American was appointed to serve as a public official on the City Board of Commissioners in 1980. Reverend Vaughn's funeral service was held at the First Baptist Church on East 4th Street, Rome, Georgia. John Lawson Vaughn was one of twelve children, born in 1881. He worked hard helping his father make a living for the family. As a boy, his father sent him to Tuskegee Institute to study in the farm educational and vocational academy. He studied for four years; helping in the wheel shop during his spare time. He began his ministerial career on February 11, 1911. His first pastorate was the Shiloh Baptist Church of Alabama City, Alabama. In 1917, Reverend Vaughn came to Rome as Pastor of the Lovejoy Baptist Church, where he served for over fifty years. During three summers he studied in Gadsden, Alabama working toward his degree and then entered Morehouse College. He returned to Rome in 1923 with his degree and once again took over the pastorate of the church. Reverend Vaughn also served as pastor of Flint Hill Baptist Church of Gaylesville, Alabama, where he served for 25 years. While in Rome, he also served Matthew Chapel Baptist Church for 4 years, Friendship Baptist Church of Adairsville, Georgia for 9 years, and the Hopewell Baptist Church of Dalton, Georgia for 14 years. In 1948, Reverend Vaughn was elected as Vice President of the Rome Ministerial Alliance, composed of both black and white ministers. This was the first time an African American had been elected to an office. Reverend Vaughn's interests did not stop with problems of just his own congregation. He was constantly being called on to help solve outsiders' problems and to aid needy families, and he also posted bail to get people out of jail. During the Christmas Season, he was one of the leading figures in the Empty Stocking Fund, and also one of the prime forces in helping Rome Black Leaders procure a band for Old Main High School. He was looked upon as a leader in all civic drives and campaigns benefiting both races, and he freely gave of his time and monies to help build a better Rome.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Norris K. Allen, Sr. was the founder of the Martin Luther King Celebration of Rome, Georgia in 1987, which was held at the Rome City Auditorium. Rev. Clyde Hill, Sr. was honored at that event with the Outstanding Community Service Award for his leadership guiding Rome through the Era of Integration. Hill was a voice for the black community in the early 1970's, demanding jobs in public establishments, utility services companies, banks, and grocery stores, all while battling zoning and busing issues evolving from students integration into the Rome Public Schools System. The MLK Celebration grew into an annual, four-day event and has served its purpose for the past 25 years. Reverend Allen was also the founder of the Northwest Georgia Minority Business Association, which is an organization of 125 business-owners trained in economic development under the state mandate of Rural Economic Development of Small and Minority Businesses. This organization established a legacy to honor the downtown Black Business District--commonly referred to as Five Points. NWGMBA was retired into History on May 20, 2011 ending Twenty-Five Years of Service to the NW Georgia District. The NWGMBA has received several honors from numerous organizations, including: the Small Business Development Center of the University of Georgia, the Atlanta Business League, the Business League of Georgia, the Georgia Association for Minority Entrepreneurs (GAME) of Augusta. NWGMBA has also received the Congressional District Award for Outstanding Community Service Organization, and has been honored by both the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus and the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce for its outstanding works. Minority Business owners experienced much progress; building and owning new businesses. Furthermore, ``Camelot''--held on January 15, 2009--was a concept of Reverend Allen. As President of local SCLC, he offered a celebration to honor the 80th Memorial Birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the historic election of the first African American elected as President of the United States. A ballroom gala affair gave opportunity to citizens to join in the nation's celebration. Norris and Gladys Allen attended the Inauguration in Washington, held a book signing at the Rome City Auditorium to create a record of Romans who attended the Historical Inauguration. This Book was presented to the archives of the City of Rome at RAHM on February 15, 2009. The Museum opened its doors on January 20, 2009, celebrating the historical signing-in ceremony in Washington, D.C. Reverend Allen continues to break barriers and cross racial lines, locally, state-wide, and nationally. On July 28, 2007, he presented a Who's Who of the MLK Diversity Class to honor a host of multi-racial leaders, making a difference by bringing harmony to our community. Rev. Allen will host ``Camelot II'', on January 15, 2013 honoring the 50th Anniversary of The Civil Rights Movement of Rome.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 945 on adoption of H. Res. 502, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this Democratic motion to instruct the conferees, assuming that they're going to instruct the conferees to adopt the Senate amendment. Clearly, this House has spoken in a bipartisan way with H.R. 3630. In fact, we will follow this debate with a resolution, H. Res. 501, restating the provisions of H.R. 3630, which basically gives that tax break to 160 million middle-income Americans for a full year. It extends the unemployment insurance to 99 weeks for those who have been out of work for more than 6 months for an additional year. Last, but certainly not least, Mr. Speaker, it gives the assurance of the physicians in this country that provide care for our blessed senior citizens under the Medicare program that their reimbursement will not be cut 27 percent. No. Indeed, it not only mitigates that cut, but it pluses it up by 1 percent for 2 full years. This gives the doctors the assurance that they know they can continue to treat Medicare patients. I can't help but believe, Mr. Speaker, that the other side of the aisle agrees with all three of these provisions. It's beyond me that they would disagree with the job-creating Keystone XL pipeline, 120,000-plus jobs. It's hard for me to understand how they could oppose any of that. No. I think really this is all about how we pay for it. What the Democrats want to do, Mr. Speaker, is they want to charge increased taxation on the job creators in this country. What we want to do is pay for it by freezing the pay of all these Federal employees-- yes, including ourselves--for 3 additional years in a very responsible way and other provisions on this side that makes sense for the American people. Reject this motion to instruct.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I rise in strong support of H. Res. 501 and commend the gentleman for the work he has done. Colleagues, House Resolution 501 restates the provisions in House bill H.R. 3630 that we passed last Friday in a very bipartisan way and sent it over to the Senate--things like, yes, extending the payroll tax cut to 160 million middle-income Americans for a full year; allowing 99 weeks of unemployment insurance coverage for those individuals who have been out of work for more than 6 months, we do that for an additional year; and last but not least, to mitigate the payment cut, the 27 percent payment cut to health care providers who need to be there for our senior citizens. We do this all, and we pay for it in a responsible way. Now, let's be serious about the controversy here in regard to this Senate amendment versus our bill, H.R. 3630. And it's time, Mr. Speaker, to end the mendacity. There is not one scintilla of logic in the Senate amendment to House bill H.R. 3630. The only thing that makes sense is the Democratic majority in the Senate wants to pay for these things by raising taxes on job creators. We in the House want to pay for it in a much more responsible way, raising taxes on nobody, but freezing salaries for Federal employees--yes, including our ourselves-- for the next 3 years.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And the sale of electromagnetic spectrum, which will raise some $8 billion and create thousands of jobs. So let's not make any pretenses about this. The House and the Senate have choices: They can name the conferees, they can come to conference, and they can get this done, or they can let these bills fail and fail the American people.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from west Georgia, Congressman Graves, just said, the House took action yesterday to boost our economy and create jobs. And I stand before you now to implore Senate Democrats and President Obama, follow suit and to support the Keystone pipeline project. The pipeline, which has been delayed for more than 3 years by this administration, would be a critical step towards energy independence and job creation in the United States. This pipeline would transport 1.4 million barrels of oil per day from Canada down to the gulf coast refineries, drastically reducing our reliance on Middle East imports and create, yes, more than 100,000 jobs nationwide. This does include Georgia, where Keystone fuel would be shipped by existing pipelines to terminals in Atlanta, Rome, Augusta, Athens, as well as to other east coast customers. The time to act is now, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues in the Senate and President Obama to allow production to begin.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the undefeated Calhoun High School football team, the Yellow Jackets, who in my district won their first-ever Georgia High School Association Class AA State championship with a 27-24 win against the Buford High School Wolves last Friday, and give a special shout-out to Superintendent Dr. Michele Taylor and Principal Greg Green. For the past 4 years, Calhoun has played Buford in the State championship, and this year, in truly nail-biting fashion, Calhoun prevailed in overtime on a 32-yard field goal by Adam Griffith. Mr. Speaker, Buford is one of the best teams in the country, led by my friends Coach Jess Simpson and Athletic Director Dexter Wood. And it would have set a record had it won its fifth straight State championship, but Calhoun was finally able to stop them. My congratulations to head Coach Hal Lamb and his staff, the outstanding young athletes and their families, and the whole high school community on this great victory. You've made us all proud. Go Yellow Jackets.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Physicians will see a 27.4 percent decrease in Medicare payments if we fail to act before the new year. If Congress fails to act, seniors may find that no physician in their area can afford to accept their Medicare card. That is not the holiday cheer our seniors deserve. This bill is not perfect. As a medical doctor, I would prefer to be voting today on a permanent fix to this flawed physician payment formula in Medicare known as SGR, but I do not have that choice. My choice, Mr. Speaker, is simple: vote for the physician fix or vote against it. Vote in support of my former patients who need access to their doctor when they're sick, or vote against them. Vote to open up spectrum availability and bolster job creation within a growing telecommunications marketplace, or vote against it. Vote for timely approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and, yes, create 20,000 immediate jobs, along with domestic energy independence, or vote against that. Allow the EPA to enact job-killing Boiler MACT rules on every State and every industry in the United States, or vote to rein them in. Today I'll be voting ``yes'' for the constituents of the 11th District of Georgia and for my country.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join my colleague from Illinois, the chairman of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee on the Committee of Energy and Commerce, on this very important subject. Our colleagues from Illinois specifically pointed out the existing situation in their State in regard to these nuclear reactor sites in Illinois and what they do with spent nuclear fuel. The poster that the gentleman has presented in regard to my great State and my neighboring State of South Carolina as to what we're faced with is equally as telling. I think it might be instructive, Mr. Speaker, if I go back and take a walk down memory lane just a little bit in regard to my background. When I was growing up in North Augusta, South Carolina, this central Savannah River area, which includes the southern part, if you will, or the western part of South Carolina and the eastern part of Georgia, is separated by the Savannah River. There was a facility built on the South Carolina side in a town called Ellington, South Carolina, back in 1950. I hate to tell my age, but I was 7 or 8 at the time. Mr. Speaker, my parents owned a little motel on the river, and they very insightfully named the mom-and-pop, 25-unit motel the Riviera Motel. During the construction of this nuclear plant, there were 50,000 construction workers involved in constructing that facility for 3 years. Every evening when the Sun went down, I can't tell you how happy my parents were to turn on that ``no vacancy'' sign at the Riviera Motel, because all of these workers stayed with us. We didn't get rich; they were only paying $8 a night. It's just to point out the importance of jobs in the nuclear industry and the capability of expanding our employment sector in this particular lane of energy. In this country right now, today, I'm told that we produce about 20 percent of our electricity from nuclear power. In the State of Georgia, it's 24 percent. It's not much higher. We have two sites and four reactors. We're in the process of adding two more right on the Savannah River, as the gentleman from Illinois points out, at Plant Vogtle; and, hopefully, we'll get that done. The problem, which the gentleman is bringing before all of our colleagues--and hopefully to a lot of other folks who are viewing or listening--is: Why is it for the last 30 years we have had no new nuclear sites? We've literally had a moratorium. You have about 103 across the country--those in Illinois, those in Georgia--and what are they doing with this spent nuclear fuel? It is either shallow, underground in pool tanks, not very much above the water table or--even worse--it's aboveground in these concrete and steel containers. Talk about the risk of a terrorist attack in a radiation release. So the gentleman was so generous to ask me to join him in this colloquy about the issue. I'm looking forward to continuing, as I yield back to him, to discuss the real problem here of what to do with that spent fuel.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. And the question of who is responsible in Hanford or Barnwell, South Carolina, or New Ellington to guard and protect, a tremendous burden on the States. But even if the Department of Homeland Security--maybe they do some oversight and protection of these sites. But 103 different sites across the country, how much simpler, how much safer, how much cheaper if they had one site to protect, that being 100 miles from Las Vegas at Yucca Mountain?

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, if the gentleman will yield to me again, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this, because what year did we commission a group to study--and there were a number of potential sites for permanent storage from all these 103 facilities-- one unified central site? I'm relatively sure--the gentleman could correct me if I am wrong, but it was at least a 5-year process before it was settled in 1987 and Congress at that time designated Yucca Mountain as the sole site for permanent high-level nuclear waste repository after years of contentious applications. So this is set in law, is it not?

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I have had the opportunity, as a Member of Congress, and particularly as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Speaker, to travel to France and Scandinavia recently to look at their nuclear facility but, in particular, their ability to reprocess in France and their ability to store in Scandinavia. We have described a little bit about the physiognomy, if you will, of the Yucca Mountain area, the nuclear test site, that arid desert of northern Nevada; and they have, in Scandinavia, developed a laboratory. I think they call it The Clad. But it is literally 1,400 meters below ground in bedrock, and you could drive 18-wheel trucks down to something like 2 miles deep in the ground where their spent nuclear fuel is stored. And that's the model, and that's really what we are looking at and planning for at Yucca Mountain. Nothing, really, nothing could be safer in regard to storage. The other thing is, while we were in France, we looked at a facility where they take that spent fuel, Mr. Speaker, and they reprocess it. So at some point in the future, we decide and we have the technology to do that, that source of spent nuclear fuel that's stored in Yucca Mountain could be used to recycle and to get more energy out of this spent nuclear fuel. It's beyond me how a President, by Executive order, can stop the will of Congress. And maybe we ought to talk about that in regard to things like the Keystone energy pipeline and expand this discussion a little further.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the subcommittee chair from Illinois would yield to me, if the gentleman from the 11th of Illinois lets the gentleman from the 11th of Georgia be somewhat instructive in regard to the politics, because that pure and simple is what it is. Of course comments were made in regard to the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But the fact is that it is the Secretary of Energy, it's the Secretary of Energy. This Secretary of Energy, a Nobel Laureate in nuclear physics who was essentially told by this administration to tell the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that he was requesting that the license application for Yucca Mountain be withdrawn from the NRC, taken out of their hands, the licensing process stopped with prejudice. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but if there are any lawyers in the body, they understand when you withdraw something with prejudice, that means you can't bring it back up. So this $14 billion that has been taken out of the ratepayers from the 50 States, or at least where these 103 reactors exist, they are paying for this. And yet this political pressure on a gentleman who's got to be much, much smarter than any of us, a Nobel Laureate in nuclear physics; if I were him, as soon as that word came down to me and I got the memo from the White House, I would immediately resign over righteous indignation.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. But, fortunately, if I might interject, the board of the NRC rejected that, rejected what he recommended.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Medicare physicians are facing a 28 percent cut come January 1, 2012, unless this Congress acts to stop it. If left alone, these cuts will force many physicians to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries, a move that could harm millions of seniors who are in search of care. It is incomprehensible that congressional Democrats have already cut Medicare provider rates as a way to help pay for ObamaCare and that they again offered to cut provider rates during our debt negotiations this Congress. Providers in my district and across this country have told me that if Congress continues to cut provider rates they won't be able to see Medicare patients, pure and simple. In fact, CMS actuary Rick Foster has told us that the cuts to hospitals in ObamaCare alone will force 15 percent of these facilities to close. The seniors in my district tell me they can't afford to lose their doctors. Let's get a fix to this problem done, and done permanently.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, maybe the President will listen to the advice of the gentleman from Ohio and sign up for public financing of his re-election effort. But mainly I rise today in strong support of the combined efforts of my good friends, Mr. Harper of Mississippi and Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, to reduce Federal spending by ending the public financing of campaigns and conventions and to terminate this Election Assistance Commission. As Presidential campaigns in this day and age are becoming increasingly expensive to the tune of billions of dollars, the idea of having taxpayers contribute matching funds to them has become ludicrous. The end of this practice would save $617 million over 10 years, and I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for his work to reduce spending. As far as the gentleman from Mississippi's efforts regarding the Election System Commission, as a member of the committee of jurisdiction over EAC, the House Administration Committee, I've learned firsthand that this agency has outlived its usefulness, it's mismanaged its resources, all the while costing taxpayers, we the taxpayers, millions of dollars a year. Mr. Speaker, the Election Assistance Commission budget request for 2012 devoted 51.7 percent of its budget to management overhead costs. Let's eliminate this commission and support this bill. Mr. Speaker, following is my statement in its entirety: I rise today in strong support of the combined effort of my good friends, Mr. Harper of Mississippi and Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, to reduce federal spending by ending the public financing of campaigns and conventions, and to terminate the Election Assistance Commission. As Presidential campaigns in this day and age have become increasingly expensive to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, the idea of having taxpayers contribute matching funds to them has become ludicrous. Ending this practice would save $617 million over 10 years and I commend Mr. Cole for his work to reduce spending. As far as Mr. Harper's efforts regarding the Election Assistance Commission, as a member of the committee of jurisdiction over the EAC-- the House Administration Committee--I have learned first-hand that this agency that has outlived its usefulness and mismanaged its resources-- all while costing taxpayers millions of dollars a year. In the midst of our record levels of debt, we must scrutinize where every dollar of taxpayer money is being spent to ensure we are allocating these funds responsibly and delivering the best possible value to our citizens. Mr. Speaker, the Election Assistance Commission's budget request for 2012 devoted 51.7 percent of its budget to management and overhead costs. It should be hard for anyone to argue that an agency that spends $5.5 million dollars managing programs totaling $3.5 million dollars is a responsible use of taxpayer funds. The EAC has more than doubled in size--without an increase in its responsibilities--since it was originally supposed to sunset in 2005. It is long past time, Mr. Speaker, that we allow government programs that have outlived their usefulness to be shut down, rather than maintain unnecessary and redundant layers of bureaucracy. Eliminating this red tape would save American taxpayers $33 million dollars over five years, while at the same time preserving the EAC's necessary functions--voting system testing and certification--at the Federal Election Commission, which can more efficiently handle these responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, the National Association of Secretaries of State--who are the direct beneficiaries of the EAC's services--have themselves called for the EAC's dissolution. This body should follow suit today. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for allowing me to take up a little time--maybe just a minute--to interrupt the gentlelady from New York.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, for yielding, Mr. Speaker, and I thank our leadership for giving us this hour to focus in on Medicare and ObamaCare, formally, I guess, called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We all know it to be the Unaffordable Care Act. But I think it's very important, Mr. Speaker, and instructive for the folks back home, especially our seniors, to look at this body and the other Chamber as well, Congress as a whole, and you look at the Members who are health care providers. In this House of Representatives, there are 435 Members, and 21 of them on the Republican side are health care providers: nurses, doctors, psychologists, dentists. On the Democratic side of the aisle, three. You look at the other body, at the Senate, and you see four doctors on the Republican side. None on the Democratic side. So as we get into this season, this political season, of course the Presidential election cycle, Mr. Speaker, you know, we all know, that we're already seeing the ads. I think Dr. DesJarlais referred to this add about cutting Medicare 30 percent. Don't let Congress cut Medicare 30 percent. And who cares more about seniors. And I think those statistics are pretty darn telling in regard to who cares more about our seniors. Many of us, in fact, have practiced so long that we're seniors. Thank God we've got good health and vigor and enthusiasm for giving up what has been a wonderful profession, whether we were nurses or doctors or whatever, but caring for people and the compassion that goes with it, to come to Congress, come here inside the Beltway and really work on behalf of our seniors, work on behalf of getting the health care policy right. But particularly in regard to our senior citizens and the millions that depend on Medicare either because of a disability or their age. So it's the Republican Party, Mr. Speaker. It is the Republican Party that is really working on behalf of our seniors. What did the Democrats do when they were in control for that brief period of time and Ms. Pelosi was the Speaker? They brought the country a whole new entitlement program, ObamaCare. It had nothing to do with seniors. It had nothing to do with the poor, who are covered by Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, the SCHIP program. In Georgia it's called PeachCare. They did nothing to strengthen Medicare. In fact, to pay for this new entitlement program, health insurance for all, young and healthy people, they gutted the Medicare program. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana has a poster before us right now, the first slide, if you will, and we need every one of us on both sides of the aisle to focus on that. And as he points to the first bullet point, cutting $575 billion from the Medicare program. And most of it, in the next bullet, is from the Medicare Advantage program. And of the 40 to 45 million people that are on Medicare, most of them, because they're 65, maybe 10 million of them because they're disabled and younger, but so many of them, Mr. Speaker, get their health care on the Medicare program through something called Medicare Advantage. And that's the key word. Why is it Advantage? Because it gives them comprehensive care, it gives them an emphasis on wellness, prevention. It's not just treating disease. It gives them a drug benefit even before Medicare Part D was enacted by a Republican Congress back in 2003. And what do the Democrats do? They took--what was it, Dr. Fleming?--$135 billion out of the Medicare Advantage program over a 10-year period. That is a 14 percent cut. And President Obama says if you like what you have you can keep it. Well, you can keep it if it's still available, but it won't be. We're here tonight to let the American people know and let our colleagues know, and if we have to hit them over the head with a 2-by-4 to get their attention, we're going to do it. Because they are ruining a great program. And we're health care providers. It breaks our heart. We know. We see the patient. We are at their bedside in sickness and in health when they come to our office for routine checkups. But we're here now I guess as policy wonks. It's our colleagues back home--we want to keep them in the Medicare program, particularly primary care doctors seeing those patients. It just breaks my heart to see what's happening. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for managing the hour tonight on behalf of our leadership to make sure that these points are made and made very clear to the American people, particularly our seniors.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. She has made such great points. The thing that I wanted to mention to my colleagues is that if we do nothing--and I think Representative Hayworth pointed this out--it is really not an option. She talked about those dates--2024, maybe, but probably closer to 2021--when part A becomes fiscally insolvent. If we do nothing, then what would happen is our seniors under the Medicare program would take a 22 percent cut in their benefits package, or else we would have to raise the payroll tax 22 percent. I'll yield back after making this comment as I think this is important. Medicare was enacted as an amendment to the Social Security Act in 1965. I guess it's title XVIII. We didn't have all of the information we needed back then. As Representative Hayworth points out, situations were different. Back then, people were not reliant so much on medication. It was more surgery and that sort of thing. Now we have Medicare part D. The point is that things change; and if we hadn't changed with the times, we would still be watching analog television. It's just as clear and as simple as that. For people to criticize what the Republican budget called for in regard to making changes to Medicare so that it remains solvent for our children and grandchildren--and, as Dr. Hayworth pointed out, to protect it, preserve it and strengthen it for those who are already on it--it would not do anything in regard to them but would be a phased-in change for our children and grandchildren so they'll have it like we've had it. I thank the gentlelady for letting me interrupt briefly.