Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid released a new analysis of ObamaCare that confirmed what Republicans have been saying all along: our Nation's health care costs will increase under ObamaCare, and this bill will hurt health care for seniors. Mr. Speaker, a few simple facts: First, under ObamaCare, our national health care expenditures will increase by $311 billion in the first 10 years. Second, health care will increase to 21 percent of GDP by 2019. Third, the government will spend $410 billion to expand Medicaid under ObamaCare. And, fourth, more than 7 million seniors will be forced off of their current Medicare coverage, including 50 percent of those who are currently on Medicare Advantage. Speaker Pelosi, this is not the reform you promised; this is not the reform the country needs. That is why I will be fighting to repeal and replace this legislation with real reforms that lower costs and improve coverage and care without bankrupting our country.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 4336, a bill originally introduced by Representative Deal of Georgia, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this morning with a simple message: we can do better. Just look around. What has been accomplished under the Democratic leadership? A takeover of our health care system, otherwise known as ObamaCare, which spends money we don't have, without lowering the cost of health care. A cap-and-tax energy bill which would cost the average American family an additional $3,000 annually for the energy. And, of course, the failed stimulus legislation costing $861 billion that has yet to create a single non-government job, leaving our unemployment rate at an abysmal 9.7 percent. Now the Senate is considering a permanent bailout for Wall Street, and the President's top economic adviser is pushing for a European- style value added tax on top of our current tax system. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than they're currently getting, and House Republicans have a commonsense solution that will create jobs, lower the tax burden for American families, and stop spending money that we don't have.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Maybe that's what President Bush would have said since he is from the State of Texas. But, Mr. Speaker, I think our colleagues get our point here. And I, quite honestly, when 20 States, the attorneys general of 20 States join in bringing a suit challenging the constitutionality of this provision that actually mandates commerce, and they represent, in the aggregate, those 20 States, what, about 40 percent of the population? And then you have the State of Virginia, Attorney General Cuccinelli is filing his own suit on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth. In our great State of Georgia, Governor Perdue, Mr. Speaker, has asked our attorney general to join in this suit, to join Attorney General McCollum in the State of Florida and these other 19 States. Our attorney general, our Democratic attorney general in the State of Georgia, Mr. Speaker has refused, even though the Georgia Constitution says if the Governor is requesting that the attorney general defend the State of Georgia, that the Constitution requires him to do that. But for whatever reason, I am not saying it's political, but our Democratic attorney general in the State of Georgia has declined to join in that suit. I would commend Governor Perdue, and that there are great attorneys in the State of Georgia who have agreed to file suit on behalf of the State of Georgia and its 9.5 million residents, the largest State east of the Mississippi, fifth largest in population in the country. We are going to bring suit, and it's going to be done on a pro bono basis. These attorneys normally charged $700 an hour for their services. They are highly skilled, very experienced attorneys, and they are going to do this because our attorney general refuses to do it, unfortunately. But honestly, and I want to hear further, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is an expert, Judge Carter is an attorney and a judge for over 20 years, he is the expert. But I think, and I really want my colleagues to hear this, I think the Supreme Court could vote 9-0 in favor of these 20 suits that are bringing suit against the constitutionality of this provision, mandating commerce, forcing people against their will to engage in commerce, as Judge Carter has said. So I hope that it will be an expedited review, Judge, maybe I am not using the right terminology, and hopefully within a year, year and a half, that this thing will be settled. Colleagues, what that will do is it will unravel ObamaCare. It will unravel ObamaCare because to try to simplify this, this thing would never have worked. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that the health insurance plans, AHIP, these big insurance companies like Aetna, Blue Cross, Cigna, do you think they would have agreed to cover people with preexisting conditions at standard rates if they had not been given this deal? They went over to the White House a year and a half ago, Mr. Speaker, along with the American Medical Association, and the American Association of Retired Persons and Big Pharma, and there was a deal for everybody, Mr. Speaker. That was a good deal for the health insurance industry because they were going to pick up all these additional people who were going to be forced to purchase health insurance, and not only health insurance, but as Judge Carter pointed out, Mr. Speaker, they were going to be forced and are going to be forced to purchase health insurance that has first dollar coverage. Do you think there's any plans ultimately to expand health savings accounts and let young people who are healthy, as the judge pointed out, and taking care of themselves and exercising and doing all of the right things to buy a health insurance policy they can afford, one with a high deductible, but a low monthly premium, and it has catastrophic coverage, they are not going to be permitted to do that? They are going to have to get these first dollar plans by 2014, and they can't afford it. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to share my thoughts. My colleagues, I think, know that I have practiced medicine for 31 years, and I know of what I speak in regard to the American people being opposed to having the Federal Government come in lock, stock and barrel and take over one-sixth of our economy to make decisions that should be made in the sanctity of the exam room between a doctor and a patient. I look forward to the rest of your comments.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Judge Carter, for yielding to me. I was listening at the outset of the hour, and I will say to the gentleman that I agree with him completely in regard to where does the spin stop. And, of course, Judge Carter said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that the spin stops at the Constitution; and he just commented a second ago, furthermore, the spin stops at the Supreme Court. I think it's absolutely right, if Judge Carter points out to our colleagues, the Constitution in the commerce clause says Federal Government can regulate commerce, but it doesn't say that the Federal Government can mandate commerce and that's exactly the point, Mr. Speaker, that Judge Carter, Representative Carter from Texas, is making. He used some examples. I could throw out another and say, well, if the Federal Government can force, force people maybe against their will and their ability to pay, to have a health insurance policy, why couldn't they go on and say, well, every adult male and woman between the ages of 21 and 64 has to buy cowboy boots? And to take it a step forward say not just cowboy boots but cowboy boots that are made in the State of Texas.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. And, Madam Speaker, I want to yield time now to another member of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, the gentleman from the Sixth District of Louisiana, Dr. Bill Cassidy.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Thank you, Dr. Roe. I now yield to Dr. Paul Broun from Athens and Augusta.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. The gentleman, Madam Speaker, is absolutely accurate in what he just presented to our colleagues. And there is another point in this bill that I think the Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, may have been referring to when she said we need to pass it so folks can find out what's in it. The law before this was passed in regard to what people could take in the way of a tax deduction for health care expenditures was limited to that amount above 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Well, you would have to be a low-income person to take advantage of that tax break, if you will. This existed for a number of years. And most people's adjusted gross income, if they're in the middle class or upper middle class, their medical expenditures in 1 year, Madam Speaker, are not going to be more than 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income unless they got into a catastrophic situation. So there is no advantage there except for our low-income taxpayers. That 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income kicks in pretty quickly, and that's been heretofore an advantage to them. And yet in this bill that threshold has been raised to 10 percent, 10 percent of their adjusted gross income. This is just ripping the heart out of our low-income folks who are not on a safety net program. They have rejected the nanny state; they have gotten out of the hammock. They're working, they have pride in having a job and supporting their families, but we're making it that much harder on them, Madam Speaker. And this might be small potatoes to some people, but it's real to our low-income people who are working--the working poor, as we sometimes refer to them--and I wanted to make sure we pointed that out. At this point, my colleagues, I will start with Dr. Roe from Tennessee, and then we will go back to Dr. Broun from Georgia.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. On his point in regard to the loss of jobs, I want to ask my colleagues to refer to this poster that I have. Because in the first week after this bill passed, these companies like AT&T, Verizon, John Deere, Caterpillar, these are companies that are, of course, household names, everybody recognizes before I mention them, but there are some 3,500 companies, other companies, smaller, medium- sized companies, some large as well as these four I mentioned, that are going to have to take charges against their future earnings. They are required, Madam Speaker, to do this by law, to file with the SEC, so the that the moms and pops across this country, retirees on fixed incomes who may have a few shares of AT&T, Verizon or John Deere and Caterpillar, in the interest of full disclosure, the companies are required to make those reports of charges against future earnings. And in the aggregate, Madam Speaker, these companies have taken $14 billion worth of charges against future earnings because of a provision in the health reform act in regard to providing prescription benefits to their retirees, and that's exactly what my colleague from the 10th District of Georgia, Dr. Broun, is referring to when he says it is going to cost jobs. Because the only way these companies can continue to provide those benefits is to cut back on their employment base or simply say to the new hires, we are not going to be able to provide a prescription drug benefit to you in your retirement years. You just need to go sign up for Medicare Part D. So you have got everybody losing. The company is losing, the retiree is losing, and the Federal Government and John Q. Taxpayer is losing. Because more and more people are getting the benefit for Medicare Part D rather than from these companies who wanted to give it to them, but the provisions in this bill snatched that opportunity away from them.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, and I think he brought up some extremely good points. And, Madam Speaker, I agree completely with what he said in regard to this system, this health care reform act, being designed to fail. I think it was. I think that from the very beginning--Madam Speaker, I serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee; and, as you know, that is the committee that has so much jurisdiction over health care, all of Medicaid, which the gentleman from Tennessee was just speaking of, and part B of Medicare, the Children's Health Insurance Program. So it is one of three committees in the House that has jurisdiction over health care but probably the most important committee. The committee, Madam Speaker, as you and all of my colleagues know, has been chaired for many years in the past by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the Honorable John Dingell, a great Member, but a Member who for years and years, as his father also before him, was pushing and has continued to push for a single-payer national health insurance plan for this country, not unlike what exists in some Western European countries and other countries around the world, but certainly Canada and the U.K. are two very good examples of how national health insurance works. But I truly believe, Madam Speaker, and I am basing this not just on my belief but on comments that were made in the Energy and Commerce Committee, as this original bill that was called H.R. 3200 at the time--and this was before the August recess of last summer, and when that bill was marked up in committee and amendments were submitted, there were so many amendments, Madam Speaker, from your side of the aisle, the majority side, that would ask to make this a national health insurance plan, a single payer, as it's described. And in that bill, of course, was a robust--that's the way the progressive wing of the Democratic Caucus described it--a robust public option. Madam Speaker, just as the Democratic majority when President Clinton was the President of this country with the HillaryCare, they weren't able to get that bill passed. And this administration under President Obama and this Democratic majority realized that they could not initially get a single-payer plan through this Congress and past the American people, but they felt that they could get so close, one step away, by having this robust public option to compete with the private market and virtually squeeze the private market out of any hope of profitability such that eventually everybody would be in the public plan and eventually they would take that one additional step in maybe the 112th or 113th Congress, if the Democratic majority continued and President Obama sought and got a second term, that they would get to that goal that so many Members on the Democratic side of the aisle who have been here for years and years and years, the ultimate goal of passing a single-payer national health insurance plan. And so I think the gentleman from Tennessee is absolutely right in regard to what the overall plan was to accomplish, and that's a great fear that we continue to have. I want to yield back to the gentleman from Tennessee. I know we've been joined by my colleague from the State of Georgia, family practitioner Paul Broun, and I'll call on him in just a few minutes for his comments as well. I yield back to the gentleman from Tennessee at this point.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman would yield back me, and I just want to continue on that theme as we conclude. And I thank my colleagues from Louisiana and from Tennessee and from Georgia. But the gentleman from Georgia just said it so well. We are going to repeal this bill. That is the pledge. The Republican minority party now, but hopefully soon to be the majority party on November the 3rd of this year, our pledge is to repeal this bill and to replace it. And I think it is very important that the American people understand that that is part of the pledge. I read an article, Madam Speaker, today in the National Review by Jeff Anderson, this week's issue, and he described something he called a Republican small bill. And I will just quickly list about six things that would be in that replacement bill: Number one, medical malpractice reform; Number two, allowing people to buy health insurance across State lines; Number three, incentivize folks for healthy lifestyles in the workplace, working out, stopping smoking, losing weight, and giving them a break on their health insurance premiums or the deductible or their copay to incentivize these people over a 30-year career in a job so that when they get on Medicare they are healthier, and that we indeed save a tremendous amount of money as a result of that; Number four, equalize the tax treatment for individuals that are purchasing in the individual market or the small group market. Give them the same tax break that you give to employees and employers of large companies; Number five, increase Federal support, Federal support for State-run high-risk pools that we can do in every one of our 50 States so that folks with preexisting conditions wouldn't have to pay an arm and a leg, three or four times what the standard rates were; And, last but not least, get the uninsured out of the emergency room and into less expensive routine care and this expansion of community health centers. I agree with that part of the bill. But there are so many things that are wrong in this bill. It doesn't lower costs. You know, it doesn't. It fails in the number one goal of the President, to lower the cost of health care. This bill absolutely does not do it. The small Republican bill would do it, and it would not cost a trillion dollars to do it in the first 10 years and $2.5 trillion to do it in the second 10 years. So that is what we say to the American people, give us a chance. Madam Speaker, we want the American people to give us a chance, give us an opportunity to regain the majority. We will repeal this bill and we will replace it with something that really truly does bring down the costs and insure so many of those 10 to 15 million that today do not have health insurance because they can't afford it. I yield back.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. The gentleman from Tennessee, Madam Speaker, talking about this preventative services task force that came out with this recommendation, their timing couldn't have been worse, I think, in regard to the Democratic majority wanting to get this health care reform bill passed. But this was several months ago, and they actually came before the Energy and Commerce Committee and testified and said, Well, you know, we're just an advisory committee. I mean, this doesn't have the force of law, this preventative services task force. It's just making recommendations of what preventive services are good for patients and, indeed, are cost effective. And, Madam Speaker, that's what Dr. Roe, the OB/GYN from Tri-Cities, Tennessee, is talking about. They came out and said that it was not necessary; in fact, indeed, it was a waste of money to do a mammogram screening for breast cancer in women during their forties. And then they went on to say it was really questionable whether it was cost effective or beneficial to do them in women over 65 and scared the bejesus out of all of our moms and grandmoms and sisters and, in some cases, daughters of this country. And the scary thing about this, Madam Speaker, is this will become, this preventative services task force that's an advisory group will become part of this massive bureaucracy of the new health care delivery system, and what they say will be law and will be gospel. Now, a physician who is advised by his specialty--so, say like mine and Dr. Roe, the American College of OB/GYN, we're both proud Fellows, and we get these best practices clinical bulletins on a monthly basis in regard to what is the best care. They continue to recommend that screening and the importance of that screening during the decade of the forties. So, Madam Speaker, we're in a situation now where the OB/GYN doctors decide, I don't care what ObamaCare says, I'm going to continue to do those self-breast exams and I am going to look for that 2-centimeter lump that the patient is unlikely to find herself, and I'm going to do that screening mammogram. And let's say the screening mammogram shows something, something a little suspicious. And then the doctor takes the next step, the next logical and recommended step by the ACOG, and orders a needle biopsy. And maybe, Madam Speaker, that needle biopsy, thank God, comes back benign and it comes back not to be a malignancy. It was suspicious but turned out not to be a malignancy. But lo and behold, that patient develops an abscess, an infection from that needle biopsy--which is certainly a risk, a very low risk that that could occur. That doctor would probably--he or she would be sued out of their practice for doing the right thing. But yet the provision of ObamaCare would allow this preventative services task force to make it appear that they had done the wrong thing and they would not be able to defend themselves. So these are just some of the things that I guess Madam Speaker was talking about, the Speaker--Madam Speaker, I know you are the Speaker pro tem, as it were, tonight. But Speaker Pelosi was quoted as saying, I don't know, just maybe a week or so before the bill passed, that we need to hurry up and pass this bill so people can find out what's in it. Well, people indeed, Madam Speaker, are finding out what's in it, and it's not pretty. It's not pretty. I think the gentleman from Tennessee wants to make one more point, and then I will quickly refer to Dr. Broun. And also Dr. Cassidy has joined us, and I look forward the yielding to him as well.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield back to me, and I will yield back to you before, we, Madam Speaker, call on Dr. Broun. But you know, you mentioned about jobs. And certainly, I felt very strongly. I've said it from this dais on this House floor, I say it back in the district every opportunity I can, that the number one priority, the number one priority when President Obama was inaugurated last January, over a year ago now, was the creation of jobs. Now, you know, I heard our colleagues that were on the floor in the previous hour, Madam Speaker, Democratic Members from California, Wisconsin, Ohio and New York, touting the economic stimulus package, ARRA, the acronym, and how wonderful it was, and how---- And the gentleman from California said, I think he, Madam Speaker, he said coming from California back to Washington today he picked up the Sacramento Bee and the newspaper, his newspaper said that the average tax refund for this year was going to be $2,400 a family. And the group of Members went on to explain, well, that was because of the economic stimulus package, and that these people were going to get this nice tax return. Madam Speaker, I would suggest that it's very likely that the average tax return out there in Sacramento, California, is because maybe during the last calendar year, that many of these people only got to work 6 or 7 months, and then they joined the ranks of the unemployed. They had filled out a W-9 at the beginning of the year, and so much money was taken out of their pay check to pay their estimated Federal income tax, if they had been employed for a full year and, God help them, they weren't employed, they lost their jobs, they joined the ranks of the 16 million, they became part of the 10 percent in this country of unemployed. And whoopty doo, they got a $2,400 tax return. Now, isn't that great? And, Madam Speaker, I heard these same colleagues talk about, I think it was the gentlewoman maybe from Ohio, talking about all the jobs that were saved. Well, it must have been a heck of a lot of them. I think she said 2.5 million, because 3.3 million were lost. Maybe they saved 5 million. I don't know how you figure that. But I do know, Madam Speaker, that when that bill was passed, the pledge to the American people for borrowing $787 billion worth of additional, I guess, borrowed money from China that we will use to stimulate the economy, the pledge was that the unemployment rate, which was 7.6 percent at the time, was not going to go above 8 percent and we were going to save all these jobs. And no matter what the group said, and all the things that they tried to tout in regard to the economic stimulus package, I feel, Madam Speaker, and the American people feel it was a dismal failure. I guarantee you those 16 million that have been out of work for six or more months feel like it was a dismal failure. And so, you know, here again, somebody, one of the other Members said, hopefully the American people understand who's on your side. I think that was a quote from the gentleman from Wisconsin. Well, I would suggest the American people ought to think, well, who's your nanny? Who's creating the nanny state? Who's building your hammock that much bigger so that you depend on the Federal Government? So as we talk about our concerns about the health care reform act with the Federal Government taking over one-sixth of our economy, it's not just about health care. We're pretty passionate about it, Madam Speaker, because the three Members on the floor on the Republican side of the aisle tonight are members of the Doctors Caucus, the GOP House Doctors Caucus. We're physicians. In the aggregate, I bet you the three of us, Madam Speaker, have spent 75 or 80 years practicing medicine. So we're very passionate about that, the government taking over; not just the fact that it's one-sixth of the economy, but coming between us and our patients, the doctor-patient relationship. But it's a much bigger issue than that, Madam Speaker. And the gentleman from Tennessee referred to it. I know the gentleman from Georgia, my colleague from the great district that he represents in Georgia, including the University of Georgia and Athens and my hometown of Augusta, they're going to talk about that. But we're concerned about much more than this egregious health care reform bill. We're concerned about the Federal Government taking over every aspect of our lives. And, Madam Speaker, I will just make this comment before yielding to Dr. Roe: the bigger the nanny gets, the smaller we get. The bigger the Federal Government becomes, the smaller each individual becomes, and our rights are eroded inevitably. And I will yield back to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank my leadership for allowing me to speak to my colleagues over the next hour in regard to guess what? Health care reform, Madam Speaker. And I am going to be joined by several colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle who are physician Members, as I am, as you know, Madam Speaker, a physician Member. And we are all just returning to Washington after the 2-week Easter recess, a time that I think Members on both sides of the aisle hopefully enjoyed with their constituents. I know certainly that I did. Also a little bit of family time celebrating Easter and the Passover. And now we are, of course, back here in Washington inside the beltway, and the wars, as we say, begin again. But the time that I spent, these 2 weeks, in my district, the 11th of Georgia, northwest Georgia, in my nine counties that I represented, gave me, once again, an opportunity to meet with my constituents. We did that in a one-on-one format, and we did it in a town hall meeting format, several of those, and we did the tele-town hall meetings, I think a couple of those. But I can tell you, Madam Speaker, the people in my district, the 11th of Georgia and the State of Georgia, are not happy. They are not happy with the Health Care Reform Act, the patient, whatever the acronym is for this bill. The people didn't want it. They made that very clear in every poll taken over the past year as we led up to the unfortunate passage of this massive takeover of one-sixth of our economy. Folks did not want that, and they still don't. And I think they're expressing that to Members on both sides of the aisle as they go home, and Members are going to be held accountable. I know, Madam Speaker, that Members on both sides of the aisle understood that when they either voted for or against this bill. And the American people are no happier today than they were 3 weeks ago. I would like, at this point, to yield to my colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Phil Roe, a fellow physician and also a fellow OB/GYN specialist. Dr. Roe, being from Tennessee and practicing a number of years and delivering a lot of babies there in that State, knows all too well what happened with TennCare and had said the whole time that he has been in this 111th Congress--this is his first term--that you had the perfect pilot program for this bill that the Democratic majority insisted on passing against the will of the American people right in his home State of Tennessee. And I would like to yield to him now, Madam Speaker. And maybe he can yield some light on what that experiment showed over an 8- or 10-year period in the Volunteer State.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman would yield back, Madam Speaker, and I know we are getting toward the end of our hour. And I really appreciate him bringing that out, because in the process of doing that, I think it is important for all of our colleagues to know that taking over, the government taking over, first it was a public option, and as Dr. Roe just pointed out, Madam Speaker, now it is a complete government takeover of the student loan industry, and I think it is instructive, as I said at the outset of the hour, of what the intention is in regard to the health care system. And, oh, by the way, in the process of the Federal Government taking away student loan lending from Sallie Mae and a lot of banks across this country, they destroyed about 70,000 jobs in the private market. I want to yield to the gentleman from Georgia for a couple of minutes, and then if he will yield back to me to conclude.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the dedication and years of service that Deane Bonner has provided for Cobb County. Since 1997, Ms. Bonner has served as the Cobb County NAACP President, and she has chosen to step down from that post at the end of the year. On Friday, February 12, members of the Cobb County community gathered at Chattahoochee Technical College to present Ms. Bonner with the inaugural ``Celebrating Diversity in Cobb County Award.'' In an outpouring of support, Ms. Bonner was praised by countless numbers of people for her kind spirit, generosity, and years of service to the community. Madam Speaker, I can personally speak to Ms. Bonner's commitment to Cobb County. I am fortunate to be able to call her a friend, and I know how her hard work to improve the community has gained her a wealth of respect from everyone with whom she has served. Madam Speaker, as Ms. Bonner steps away from the public spotlight at the end of the year, she will have very large--and difficult--shoes to fill. I would like to personally thank Ms. Bonner for her years of service to the NAACP and to Cobb County as a whole.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it's certainly with sadness but great, great respect that I announce the retirement of our senior Member on the Republican side from Georgia, the Honorable Nathan Deal. Nathan Deal, from Sandersville, Georgia, a graduate of Mercer University and Mercer School of Law, practiced law for many years in Gainesville, Georgia, in Hall County, where he also was an assistant prosecutor. Nathan Deal also was elected to the Georgia General Assembly and served in the Georgia Senate for 12 years and rose to the rank of Speaker pro tem or President pro tem of the Georgia Senate before being elected to the House of Representatives 17\1/2\ years ago. When most of this happened in the House of Representatives, first as a Democrat and now proudly as a Republican, Nathan has served on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and as all of you know, rose to the rank of chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and now ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee of Energy and Commerce. I tell you tonight, again with great sadness, that he will be leaving us but only to go back home and work on behalf of all of the citizens of the great State of Georgia. With that, I would like to yield a little time to the most senior member of the Georgia delegation, my friend, the Honorable John Lewis.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Let's all give a great round of applause to Nathan Deal.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I left behind my medical practice of almost 30 years to run for Congress. And it's hard to put into words the joy I felt each time I helped bring a new life--actually 5,200 new lives--into this world. Yet in my heart, I felt strongly in the need to improve health care in this country. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not the health care reform that I had in mind. Raiding $500 billion from Medicare is not reform. The Cornhusker kickback is not reform. The Louisiana purchase is not reform. Turning IRS agents--in fact, 17,000 new ones--into health care czars is not reform. And an unconstitutional mandate that will penalize poor families is certainly not reform. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my moderate and conservative Democratic friends who have been told by Speaker Pelosi and by the President, ``Just vote for this bill. Don't worry about your constituents. We'll take care of you,'' there is a Dear Colleague being passed around as I speak of pictures of Democratic Members, former Democratic Members, who were told the same thing back in 1993 on the issue of the Clinton tax increases. None of them who voted ``yes'' are in Congress today. Mr. Speaker, let me quote President Obama from his speech yesterday: ``If you don't think your constituents would be helped by this, then vote `no.' '' I know Americans would not be helped by this bill. I cannot support it. I will not support it. I will be voting ``no.''

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in the strongest opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, indeed, indeed, there's a hole every other step. I had not heard that story, but I'm very glad the gentleman from Georgia related it to us, because the analogy is perfect. You know, Mr. Speaker, I referred to the Democratic majority party who did their hour Special Order I guess 30 minutes or so ago and some of the comments that were made. One of the gentlemen made the comment that when they pass--the Democratic majority passes this bill tomorrow, H.R. 3590, if indeed they do, but he felt confident that they would, that he welcomed, Mr. Speaker, the debate as we go into the fall and as we all stand, as we do in every even year, every 2 years, for reelection to the House of Representatives, this great body, that he welcomed that opportunity to have that debate. In fact, he suggested that the Republican Party, our side of the aisle, none of whom will be voting for this bill tomorrow, would be campaigning on how we can win back the majority and do away with everything in the bill, all 2,700 pages of H.R. 3590, and the changes and the manager's amendment and whatever else we don't get to see but get to vote on. Mr. Speaker, the minority party has had lots of ideas on how to reform the health care system so that we bring down the costs and give I don't know how many million--maybe it's 15 to 20 million people that don't get health insurance because they cannot afford it and they're not eligible. Their income is not low enough that they qualify for a safety net program like Medicaid or the CHIP program, Children's Health Insurance Program, for their families. And when the President, Mr. Speaker, as you know, and my colleagues know, when he invited both Republicans and Democrats 2 weeks ago to come over to the Blair House and meet with him, I don't know that they realized that it would be 6\1/2\ hours, much of it filibustering. A lot of hot air in that room. A lot of oxygen sucked out of the room. But the President controlled it, and he recognized speakers when he wanted to and he made them yield back when he wanted to. But we had so many good ideas presented. And as we go forward and when we do regain the majority, we're not going to strike down every single provision of H.R. 3590. There are things in that bill that I, as a physician member, and many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle agree with and we think that they are good. The gentlelady from California mentioned the expansion of community health centers. That's a good thing. That's a good thing. Someone else in the majority party mentioned allowing our children to stay on a family policy until they're 26 years old. Many of them, of course, are still in college or graduate school, and, heretofore, insurance companies have required at age 21, maybe in some instances even at age 18, unless they were in school, that these children no longer could be covered under the family policy, and that was wrong. And we're changing that. I'm glad that we're changing that. So the gentleman from Ohio and others on your side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, I think they misspoke in regard to that. We can, should have worked together and come up with a solution that doesn't cost a trillion dollars, doesn't allow the Federal Government to take over our health care system--one-sixth of our economy, $2.5 trillion. Goodness knows, the Federal Government already controls about 60 percent of that when you think about Medicare and Medicaid and TRICARE, veterans' health care. For some reason, the Democratic majority and this President are not going to be satisfied until the Federal Government controls it all, lock, stock, and barrel, just like they said they have been trying to do for the last 40, 50, or 60 years. And I said in my earlier remarks, it's no surprise to me that it's had difficulty passing. I don't care how close it came, we the people didn't want it. And as the gentleman from Ohio talks about, let's tee it up. We're ready. We're ready for those fall elections and we're ready to run on H.R. 3590, and we're going to beat these mean old stingy Republicans. I want to, Mr. Speaker, give him a little history lesson. Thirty-four Democrat incumbents were defeated in 1994. Thirty-four incumbents were defeated. When was 1994? Well, it was one year after the latest and last great attempt for the Federal Government to take over our health care system. And that was known, my colleagues, as HillaryCare. Let me just mention to my colleagues a few names, and I think it will be quite instructive because, I think, men and women, you will recognize some of these names who were among the 34 that went into that election cycle, I'm sure, very confident, having voted for HillaryCare and the takeover by the government of our health care system. Speaker Tom Foley. Speaker of the House Tom Foley from the State of Washington, first elected in 1964. Tom Foley represented the Spokane area for 30 years. Thirty years. This was the first time since 1862 that a sitting Speaker was defeated in a reelection bid. Speaker Foley in 1992, Mr. Speaker, won by 11 points. In 1994, Speaker Tom Foley was defeated by 2 points, a 13-point shift. Colleagues, Mr. Speaker, does the name Dan Rostenkowski sound familiar? The gentleman from Illinois, Fifth District of Illinois, first elected in 1958. He lost his seat in 1994, despite being a 36- year veteran of this House and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. In 1992, I say to my colleague, Mr. Speaker, from Ohio, in 1992, Dan Rostenkowski won by 18 points. In 1994, he lost by 13 points. Just a little 31-point shift. What happened? What happened? We the people decided to put him in the ranks of the unemployed. I'm not going to read all of the names. Let me just mention one from my own State. Again, 1992. Donald Johnson from the 10th District of Georgia. He was first elected to his first term in 1992. He won by 8 points. He represented my hometown, Mr. Speaker, Augusta, Georgia, home of the Masters. Great area. It's always home to me. Well, Donald Johnson was one of the last votes for the massive, massive takeover of our health care system, and also, Mr. Speaker, voted for the Clinton increase in taxes. People back home said, Don't vote for that. Don't vote for it and come back and expect us to reelect you, Don Johnson. Don't vote for that bill. But yet I think our former colleague Don Johnson may have been the 117th vote. In 1992, he won by 8 points. In 1994, the gentleman from Georgia lost by 30, Mr. Speaker, lost by a 38-point shift. He was replaced by our great and late, I sadly say, colleague, Dr. Charlie Norwood, who served so honorably in this body until his death about a year and a half ago. He died in office, God rest his soul. Don Johnson wasn't a bad man, Mr. Speaker. I didn't know him personally, but he made a bad vote and he didn't listen to we the people. Let me mention one other, because I saw her on television earlier today and she was recommending to her Democratic colleagues that they vote for this health care reform, this massive takeover of one-sixth of our economy. She was recommending, indeed, that her Democratic colleagues tomorrow vote ``yes'' because it was the right thing to do. Well, Ms. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky at the time. Today, I think her name is Marjorie Margolies. She represented the 13th District of Pennsylvania. She was elected in 1992. And it was her decisive vote on Bill Clinton's controversial 1993 budget; it was often argued to be the cause of her downfall. In 1992, she won by about a point. In 1994, she lost by 13 points, and she indeed was the deciding vote. And the people in Pennsylvania said, Marjorie, honey, it's time for you to come on home because you're not listening to we the people. She said this afternoon on television that she has no regrets. That was 1994. So we're talking 16 years ago. I'm glad she has no regrets, but I don't think she ever intended, Mr. Speaker, to just serve one 2- year term. I don't think a lot of my Democratic colleagues in the majority party, particularly the freshmen and sophomores, had any intention or have any intention of going through the rigors and the expense and the agony and the stress of running to be elected to this House of Representatives to only serve one term. I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, but that is exactly the fate that is going to befall them as they listen to some of their colleagues and listen to their leadership and listen to the President of the United States, and they make a decision that maybe the pressure from the leadership or maybe the offers from the leadership are so attractive, the promises, the arm twisting, that they come down here tomorrow, and they forget what we, the people, want them to do, and they make a career-ending vote. I think it's important that if you don't know your history, you're going to repeat it. And that's why I spend the time talking about-- there are many more here that I could mention. But tomorrow is going to be a crucial, critical vote for many Members, and I hope and pray that those who know we, the people, from their district want them to vote ``no,'' Mr. Speaker, I hope they have the courage to do that. And then as long as you're responding to we, the people, you can't go wrong. You know, when the bill started in the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the House--and I am proud to serve on that committee. I've got a few posters that I would like to share with my colleagues to express to you why it is on this side of the aisle and why we, the people--60 percent, 70 percent across this country--are so opposed to this takeover of our health care system by the Federal Government. On this first slide, would you just look at the additional bureaucracy that is created as the Federal Government begins to take over. I don't know that in any of the congressional budget scoring that any expense item was assigned to the creation of some 32 additional bureaucratic czars. The health choices administrator, as an example, is every bit as powerful as the Social Security administrator. We talked about today the fact that there are going to be 17,000 new IRS agents so they can peruse everybody's tax return to make sure that they have purchased a health insurance policy. Now not any health insurance policy but one prescribed by the Federal Government. Not maybe a health savings account with a policy that has a low premium and high deductible. But yes, catastrophic coverage that's so popular with our young people because that's what they can best afford. No, that's not going to be permitted. We the people want it, but the health choices administrator is probably not going to allow that to occur. There will be 32 new bureaucratic agencies and growing all the time. And add to that, as I said, 17,000 additional IRS agents. How did this bill get to the point that we find this at this time? It wasn't easy, I can tell you that. It couldn't get through the Senate until, as I show you on this second slide, many, many political payoffs that are still in this bill. Remember the Cornhusker kickback? Well, that wasn't taken out. The original bill on the Senate side, this was a special favor granted to one particular Senator from one particular State, the Cornhusker State. And instead of taking it out, when we, the people, complained, what did the Democratic majority do? They extended the Cornhusker kickback to every State in the Union, so all 50 States will now get this expansion of Medicaid and an unfunded mandate that the States cannot possibly survive with. The Louisiana purchase. Mr. Speaker, I heard the Senator from Louisiana yesterday on television explaining why she asked for and received the Louisiana purchase payoff--of course, Mr. Speaker, she said it wasn't a payoff. I believe it was in an interview with Greta Van Susteren that the Senator said that, Well, Louisiana has to pay 70 percent of the price of the cost of Medicaid in her State, and the Federal Government pays 30 percent. And that wasn't fair. Well, I was astounded, first of all, Mr. Speaker, to hear that, because it's just the opposite. The State of Louisiana pays 30 percent, and the Federal Government pays 70 percent. And in fact, they've been doing that for many, many years and probably the State of Louisiana pays less into the Medicaid program than almost any other State in the country. Mississippi may be a little bit less. And the reason for that, this FMAP-matching is done based on the average income in the State. So a state that is suffering in poverty, they pay less in the Medicaid program, and we, the people, help them with the Federal match. Louisiana for many years deserved to only pay 30 percent. But after Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been given to the State of Louisiana to help them recover, and in particular in the New Orleans area. They needed it. They deserved it. A natural disaster, mostly through no fault of their own. But the economy in Louisiana has improved drastically in the last 4, 5 years since Hurricane Katrina and income has gone up. People are making a better wage because of all the construction and all the money that has been poured into Louisiana. And the State of Louisiana and its representatives continue to ask for more. It's like my dad said to me one time, Mr. Speaker, How much more money does a rich person need to be happy? Well, the answer, Mr. Speaker, is just a little bit more, just a little bit more. So I suspect that the ask-fors will never end. But I'm glad--I am very thankful that the State of Louisiana is doing well now, and the average income has gone up. And they are supposed to, by the formula, by fairness, they're supposed to pay a little bit more into the Medicaid program than 30 percent. And yet the Senator insists that, no, that's unfair to Louisiana, and that's what is known now as the Louisiana purchase. It's still in there. Gator aid is still in there. Federal funding of abortion is still in there. And $500 billion worth of Medicare cuts are still in there. Mr. Speaker, how in the world can we look seniors in the eye and say to them, We're going to cut this program $500 billion? What could possibly be the justification for doing that? This program, started in 1965, has an unfunded liability of $35 trillion over the next 50 years, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, in the previous hour talked about how cutting $500 billion out of the Medicare program was going to save the program, even suggesting that that $500 billion was waste, fraud, and abuse. Yet $120 billion of it is in the Medicare Advantage Program. Cutting Medicare Advantage 18 percent per year for the next 10 years--and really by 2014, there will be no Medicare Advantage Program. Why is it that one-fourth of our seniors on Medicare sign up for Medicare Advantage? Because it's cheaper for them, and they get a better benefit. It covers wellness. It covers many preventive screening tests that fee-for-service Medicare does not cover. It gives them an opportunity to have a professional or a nurse practitioner call and make sure that they're taking their medications and they're seen on a regular basis, and yet we're going to eliminate that program. How does that make sense? Mr. Speaker, it doesn't. It doesn't make sense. So as my colleague from Ohio was talking about, some of the things in this bill that they may pass tomorrow, they may pass with some of the tactics that have been used, like the Cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana purchase and ambassadorship here and ambassadorship there, and you name it and whatever promise, they may pass it. But Mr. Speaker, it's going to be a catastrophe, I think, for our seniors. Let me just tell you why I think so. And I spoke to the--I call them Tea Party patriots, Mr. Speaker. I don't call them tea baggers. And they're not a bunch of angry white men, as I have heard a lot of folks say. Indeed, the two or three couples who asked me to sign their posters and to pose for a picture with them were African American families. And I was so proud to be asked to do that. I mean, again, all ages, men, and women, white, black, Asian. We, the people, were there today, and I think, Mr. Speaker, they'll be there tomorrow. But here's what's happening to our seniors, and I had a few minutes to speak to the assemblage of maybe 20,000 people, and I reminded them of the stimulus package of over a year and a half ago. I guess it was maybe February of last year when that massive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, whatever it was called. But we call it the stimulus bill. I think everybody understands. It was about $820 billion worth, and a significant portion of that package, Mr. Speaker, was--remember, it was for shovel-ready projects. If the project was not shovel-ready in reference to some of these construction projects in the various States, then the States couldn't draw down that money from the economic stimulus package; it had to be shovel-ready.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. He is absolutely right. I have the pocket Constitution; I keep it with me all the time. I think my colleagues here on the floor do as well. And he was making reference, of course, to the Democratic majority and the chairwoman of the powerful Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York, Louise Slaughter, saying that, okay, we have finally decided that we are not going to do the Slaughter solution, that we are not going to do the ``scheme and deem,'' we are not going to try to sneak this by the American people by not having our fingerprints on it. We are going to actually vote on the real bill tomorrow. We will vote on the rule, and we will vote on the bill. Well, I don't know what caused that change of heart, Mr. Speaker, but I think the gentleman from Texas is very likely right on that. We, the people, all of these folks from all across the country that the gentleman from Ohio on your side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, referred to as ``tea baggers,'' they are the ones that were up here today. And I am sure that every Member of this body and the other body, Republicans and Democrats alike, you couldn't miss them. No matter how hard some Members may have wanted to not walk that gauntlet, they couldn't get away from them. So I think we, the people, had a lot to do with it. It may be because former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and Bill Barr said very recently in an article that they fully believe--I believe that article was in the Wall Street Journal--that it is totally unconstitutional according to article 1, section 7. I have it right here in front of me, Mr. Speaker. But for whatever the reason, I think it probably is a combination of both. I thank ``we, the people.'' With that, I refer back to my colleague from Georgia, the Honorable Lynn Westmoreland.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my colleague from Georgia, for being with us this hour and hopefully he will be with us for the entire hour, as long as he can stay. We also have the gentleman from Texas, as I referred to previously, who did the special 5-minute talking about the Texas Medical Society and the way the Governor in Texas and the medical society have written letters to him to share with all of us, Mr. Speaker, in opposition, in strong opposition to the passage of this bill tomorrow. And I would like to refer to Dr. Burgess at this time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield back to me for just a second. I agree with him completely in regard to that so-called ``fix it bill,'' the reconciliation bill. It very likely could ping-pong back and forth forever, and nothing in that so-called fix it bill that maybe many of the Members, Mr. Speaker, on the majority side of the aisle are counting on as they make that difficult decision possibly to vote ``yes'' tomorrow. That ping-ponging back and forth could result in no changes to this bill that they vote on tomorrow, H.R. 3590, the gentleman from Texas just described, and that is it. The President will sign that, that will be the law for better or for worse, and they indeed will be stuck with that bill with having voted to support it, Mr. Speaker, and that is what they will have to go back into their districts in this fall campaign right up until November 2nd, and that is what is going to be hung around their neck. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, that every Member in this body understands what the gentleman from Texas is talking about in regard to that. And I yield back to him at this time.