Phil Gingrey

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. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan). I want to thank also my colleague in the Senate, Senator Saxby Chambliss, who is introducing the companion legislation. Mr. Speaker, indeed, I do rise in proud support of authoring H. Con. Res. 244, expressing support for March 20 as a National Day of Recognition for Long-Term Care Physicians. And I want to give a loud shout-out to one of my best friends. In fact, he calls, he says we are pallbearer friends--now that's serious--Dr. Steve Jordan, who is a long-term care physician in Statesboro, Georgia, and one of my classmates in medical school. Yet I support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart because I fear that the Democrats' health reform bill will harm seniors and their long-term care. Seniors and patients all across this country have been telling our Congress that their health will suffer, their health will suffer if this bill, ObamaCare, passes, $500 billion in cuts to Medicare when the program is already going broke. Seniors in my district know their health care costs will go up if this bill, bought with backroom deals, is passed. This Democratic majority, while promising the American people they will reform insurance, will bring in billions of new profits to private insurance companies and for liberal bureaucrats. Let me be very clear about this, Mr. Speaker. If the Democratic majority jams this bill down the throats of American patients, our health care, their health care will suffer. It will not get better; it will get worse. And to top it all off, the majority party wants to negate the votes of 300 million patients in this country by not even allowing an up-or-down vote by their Members on this backroom-deal bill. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the worst deal of all. Yes, of course, I stand in proud support of this resolution, and I thank my colleague for making it possible to bring it to the floor.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and of course I continue to support this great resolution recognizing March 20 as National Long-Term Care Physician Day. As my colleague from Alabama, the gentleman from Huntsville, Dr. Parker Griffith, just spoke, Madam Speaker, as a medical oncologist he knows of what he speaks. And he talked about the long-term care physicians, many of us who have not yet needed their services but indeed we will. We will. As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, I have great concerns. I have great concerns about their ability should this H.R. 3590, patient protection health care reform bill--I call it ObamaCare. Should that pass, I have great concern about our long-term care physicians and what they can do, how they can help, how much in control they will be of the health and well-being of our senior citizens. You know, the economic stimulus package of last year talked about shovel-ready projects. Well, that didn't have much effect, I don't think, on our senior citizens. But if this bill passes, if ObamaCare passes, Madam Speaker, then all of a sudden these senior citizens in our country will become shovel ready, and this bill will concern them. My great fear is they will be first in line to get thrown under the bus when we start rationing health care. So as I support this resolution, as I said earlier, I have a very heavy heart and much concern. When you cut $500 billion out of a Medicare program that has $35 trillion, Madam Speaker, of unfunded liability over the next 50 years, and you are going to cut it 10 percent a year, Madam Speaker, for the next 10 years? How is that good for our senior citizens?

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I agree with my colleagues that process does matter. We, physician Members in particular, are concerned mostly about the policy, and we are emphasizing policy tonight, and we will continue to do that. But the American people definitely care about process. I want to go back, Mr. Speaker, to what my colleague from Georgia was just saying in regard to the insurance premiums are going to go up for those in the private market. There is no question about that. The CBO has said as much. And, Mr. Speaker, you wonder, maybe the American people wonder, if that's true, if the whole purpose of this reform plan was to lower the cost of insurance so more of the uninsured would have insurance, those that are not eligible for Medicaid and just don't realize it, that we have to lower the cost or they can't, we've wasted our time. We've spent $1 trillion and we have accomplished nothing. But, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this may be intentional. This may, indeed, be intentional. If what you want, Mr. Speaker, ultimately is a socialized national health insurance system like other countries have, where rationing is commonplace and denial is commonplace and old people get thrown under the bus, if that is ultimately what you want, you want the Federal Government, and your mindset, your mentality is more government is better government, more control is better because the people are too dumb to run their own lives so we want to take over, we want to take over one-sixth of the economy, so you drive up the cost of health insurance in the 40 percent of the market that's private, eventually there is no private market. And everybody morphs into these public plans. That's why the Democratic majority insisted on a public option. They didn't get it, but that's coming next. That's coming next. And I will yield back to the gentleman controlling the time to yield to Dr. Broun. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. Let me add a couple points and then I will yield to the other gentleman. You know, we have got two bills right now. We have the Senate bill which has all of these ugly, sleazy deals in them that even the Members on the other side don't want their fingerprints on, and that is why we are going through this deemed process, because they want to pass it without voting for it. Crazy. Anyway, the reconciliation part, the so-called correcting bill that they are wanting to vote on is going to do this: It is going to increase taxes by $155.8 billion on top of the Senate bill. So it is increasing taxes. It also takes over the student loan program. So what? Well, this is the so-what. It is a job killer. It is going to take all the profits from the private industries that have been loaning this money, it is going to unemploy 35,000 Americans, and it is going to skim that profit to dump into this to go down the sinkhole.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I appreciate my colleague for yielding because the gentleman points out an accurate statement in regard to the expansion of the IRS because there absolutely would be those that would be going through with a fine-tooth comb every tax return. And we're not too far from that date where people, if they don't put down and verify that they have that health insurance policy--and the gentleman was probably going to say this, but I will go ahead and say this--not just that they have a health insurance policy, but the type of policy. In other words, a young person, a young, healthy person who exercises and takes care of himself, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, runs marathons, and so he wants a health insurance policy that he can afford. He is just out of high school or just out of college. He is paying back student loans, trying to buy a car, trying to save up to get an engagement ring for his fiancee, whatever, paying for an apartment, yet he wants to have coverage. He wants to have catastrophic coverage, but he can't afford first dollar coverage, so he buys these high deductible but very low monthly premium--probably one-fourth of what the IRS and this bill is going to demand that they have. If he doesn't have it, he is going to jail.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. On this point about the job killer, this student loan--Federal Government, once again, the Federal Government taking over the student loan program. Well, I don't know. Ten, 15 years ago they took over half of it, and that wasn't enough. Although that killed about 50,000 jobs, I say to my colleague from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming. And now, as he points out, now they want it all, and that is going to kill another 30,000. So, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 80,000 jobs in the private market so that the Federal Government can have a 4-percent spread, borrowing money at 2.5 percent, lending it out to the students at 6.5 percent, 7 percent, and taking in $60 billion so this majority party can spend it on more social welfare programs. That is what we are talking about. And I yield back to my colleague.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman would yield just for a second, he may want to yield back to Dr. Fleming who is controlling the time. It is our colleague from our great State of Georgia, Congressman Nathan Deal, the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce where this bill, by the way, originated as H.R. 3200, Mr. Speaker. We all remember that. But it was Congressman Deal, Nathan Deal, 17 years, this is his 18th year, in fact, in this body, had the amendment to stop that, to make sure that people had to give adequate verification, just like they do for the Medicaid program in our States and the SCHIP program. It's called PeachCare in Georgia. It was Congressman Nathan Deal--who, by the way, I think is going to be the next Governor of Georgia--who very strongly advocated for that. But unfortunately, as all Republican amendments, if they get heard at all, they get voted down on straight party lines, good commonsense amendments.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, because I just happen to have a slide. I think my colleague from Louisiana noticed that slide. Maybe my good friend from Athens can't see it, but this is ``Notable Quotable.'' Look, Mr. Speaker, I respect the Speaker of the House of Representatives. We all do, of course. And anybody can misspeak and make a bad quote. But, gee, whiz, for the Speaker of the House to say-- here is the quote: ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.'' I have got to repeat that for you, Mr. Speaker, in case you didn't hear and my colleagues, both sides of the aisle. The Speaker of the House just a couple, a few days ago. Here is the quote: ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.'' Now, that is why the American people are outraged. They know that. 2,700 pages, and then they come here with this reconciliation package. And, oh, they are going to give us 72 hours to study it. And then, as my friend from Georgia was talking about, the Scheme and Deem or the Slaughter solution. Mr. Speaker, I am telling you, the majority party, if they do that, if they pass this bill, this Senate bill without really voting on it to trick the American people so they don't have to go home and face the irate voters, they are going to get slaughtered in November. I yield back to the gentleman controlling the time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As we conclude, I have got one last slide I want to share with my colleagues. The title of it, the Slaughter solution. My colleagues have already mentioned it. But it would indeed let Speaker Pelosi send the Senate bill to President Obama without an up-or-down vote. It would just be deemed passage when they vote for the rule. Americans deserve an up-or-down vote. And listen to these quotes as we conclude our hour. President Obama: ``I believe Congress owes the American people a final up-or-down vote.'' The Democratic National Committee chairman, his quote: ``There is going to be a vote, and it's going to be an up-or-down vote. Everybody is going to be up or down on the record and be accountable either for a `yes' vote or a `no' vote.'' Have the intestinal fortitude, Mr. Speaker, to stand up and be counted. Stand up and be counted. That is all we are asking. And I yield back to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. It's just unbelievable. And very quickly, before yielding back to my colleague, I want to say this. If we were in charge, Mr. Speaker, I think the three of us on the floor right now, we would eliminate the IRS. We wouldn't add to them and add to that bureaucracy. We would get rid of the IRS and the Federal income tax, and we would replace that with a flat tax or a fair tax, a national retail sales tax that our colleague from Georgia, John Linder, has been such a strong proponent of.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my colleague from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, for not only yielding a little time to me but also for being here on the floor to control the time. Mr. Speaker, as you know, each side of the aisle gets a leadership hour, and it seems that maybe our Democratic friends who had the previous hour and only took 35 minutes came to the conclusion that the less said the better about this health care bill. That seems to be the way things have been going, Mr. Speaker, in regard to how much we know about what is in the bill. We will be talking about that a good little bit tonight. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, on our side of the aisle, we've got a lot to say. I think the more said the better. The American people need to know. They need to be informed. Indeed they know already a lot, know enough to say, as 70 percent of them do, that they don't want this bill. Not this bill. As Dr. Fleming said, Mr. Speaker, I was doing a tele-town hall meeting to my constituents in the 11th of Georgia, northwest Georgia, the nine counties that I represent, the 700,000 people, salt-of-the-earth folks, just as Dr. Fleming represents the same kind of folks in Louisiana. Suffering folks, unemployed folks, struggling folks. I did a poll question on this tele-town hall call that probably went out maybe to 25,000 households. And a lot of them were on the line and listening and asking questions and staying in the queue for the whole hour and 30 minutes, I think we went. Mr. Speaker, the poll question was, if your greatest concern about this bill, the so-called Patient Protection and Health Accountability Act or whatever it is called, H.R. 3590, the Senate bill that is going to be deemed passed if the Democratic majority has their way, what's your greatest concern? If it's the economy, the effect that this bill will have on the economy, push ``1'' on your keypad. If your greatest concern is the effect it will have on your health or the health of your immediate family, press ``2.'' If your number one concern about this bill is the devastating effect that it will have on the Medicare program and our senior citizens, you, your parents, your grandparents, press ``3'' on the keypad. If your concern is all of the above, press ``4.'' Well, I am going to tell you, 65 percent of them, Representative Fleming, 65 percent of them, Mr. Speaker, pressed ``4.'' That is what I would have pressed, too. It was equal, 10, 12 percent equally divided among the other three. People are outraged, Mr. Speaker. It is just unbelievable to me. Let's refer to the first slide, this poster that I have got to my right, your left. What Americans Want. I wasn't surprised at all by the poll that I took tonight because the American people have been saying this for months and months. The first bullet point on the slide, 73 percent of Americans want Congress to start over on health care reform, or if they are unwilling to do that, this is a situation where it's better to do nothing. They don't believe we should do something even if it's wrong. No, if it's wrong, do nothing. Second bullet point, 56 percent of people want the Congress to tackle health care reform on a step-by-step basis, not a wholesale government takeover. Mr. Speaker, when Senator Lamar Alexander a couple weeks ago at the Blair House went to the health care summit, when he could finally get a word in edgewise after our President finished filibustering, said the same thing. Said, Look, we can solve the problem. We can actually lower the cost of health insurance and, indeed, the cost of health care if we do it in an incremental, commonsense way. And then when Coburn got to speak, Senator Coburn, Mr. Speaker, he said, Mr. President, let me just make it brief here. I know you're not going to give me a lot of time, and you're controlling the clock and who gets to speak. And you took already twice the time that we did in your opening statement. But that is okay. You're the President. But give me a couple of minutes. I will make two points. One, let's eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. And Dr. Coburn had some great suggestions about that. And then he went on to say--and, Mr. Speaker, this is almost unbelievable to us, to the physicians that serve in this House of Representatives, to the members of the GOP Doctor Caucus in the House and to our physician friends, Dr. Coburn and Dr. Barrasso in the Senate--the President said to the American Medical Society last summer, at the annual meeting--they invited him to be the keynote speaker--and when they asked, Mr. President, you want us to endorse, and the AMA went on and did endorse based on the President's promise that there would be reform of medical liability, so-called tort reform, ending frivolous lawsuits and ending the necessity for doctors to protect themselves and their practices by ordering all of these tons of tests, expensive tests, sometimes even, Mr. Speaker, dangerous tests, just to cover their back so that some slick expert witness in a court of law wouldn't say that, oh, you know, you didn't order a fizzle phosphate level on this patient? That's below the standard of care in Louisiana or in Georgia, in Marietta or Athens. That is the kind of thing we're dealing with. And to just complete the slide, Mr. Speaker, I refer back to this first poster, the last bullet point. Sixty percent of Americans think the Slaughter solution is unfair. I'm going to let my colleagues, if they want to--or maybe when they come back to me I will talk about that--but there are other Members, other physician members, Mr. Speaker, that are here; and I want to yield time to them. The gentleman from Louisiana was so kind to control the time in my absence. I yield back to him so that he can yield back to other Members. And I yield back to my good friend, Dr. Fleming.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield for a minute?

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield back to me, and I'm going to yield to my colleague in just a minute from Pennsylvania. But I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And you know, while we're talking about songs, Madam Speaker, there was another one, one of my favorites by, I think it was Julie Andrews that sung this one. I don't know whether the movie was ``Mary Poppins,'' but I think it went by the title of ``Make the Medicine Go Down in the Most Delightful Way.'' You just add a little sugar. And maybe that's what my colleague is talking about, this stew, rainbow stew, toxic stew, whatever we call it. But add a little sugar, and it's going to go down a little easier in a most delightful way for Louisiana, for Florida, for Nebraska, for North Dakota, just add a little, little bit of sugar. And add a little bit of sugar to recalcitrant Democratic Members, Madam Speaker, who are struggling to decide whether they go against their constituents, and vote for this thing, this toxic stew that the gentleman was talking about, or they have the courage to vote not only their convictions but the convictions of their constituents who overwhelmingly are saying to them, vote ``no.'' Have the courage to vote ``no'' no matter how much sugar they offer you to sweeten that toxic stew. I'd like to yield to our good friend from Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, in the previous hour, our hour was, of course, about health care, and it was led by a physician group. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Representative Thompson, has been a hospital administrator during his professional career before being elected to Congress. And I would like--I think our colleagues need to hear from him from that perspective of what the hospitals are dealing with in regard to this toxic stew. And with that I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield back. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask the gentleman to yield his time back to me because the Lord knows we don't want to hear him sing. He's done a great job of reading the Constitution. We're pleased to be joined, Mr. Speaker, by another of our colleagues, the gentleman from Iowa. I'm of course speaking of my mom's favorite Member of the body. I hope Mom's watching, Mr. Speaker. Mom is 92 years young, lives in Aiken, South, Carolina, in our good friend Gresham Barrett's district, or possibly Joe Wilson's, but my mom watches intently to what is going on up here, and she's a big fan of the gentleman from Iowa, Representative King. We're going to get to him in just a minute. Before I yield time to Representative King, I want to yield back to my friend from Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, for being courageous in the first hour of speaking out against something that may purportedly--at least one of the Members of the other body who represents the State of Louisiana, who arranged for the Louisiana Purchase. Representative Fleming, Mr. Speaker, is mighty courageous to stand up here--he's from Louisiana as well--to say, That's not right. That's not right. That's not playing fair. That's giving one State an unfair advantage. It's not a level playing field. I yield back to my friend from Louisiana.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Dr. Fleming, would you yield for just a moment? If the gentleman would yield back to me, and I will yield just for a moment to Dr. Broun, and then I will yield to Representative King. But I yield just a moment to the gentleman from Athens, Dr. Broun.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I wanted to just point out real quickly before yielding to my friend from Iowa, when I think about tea in this country, Mr. Speaker, I think about the Tea Party Patriots, God bless them. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to correct something that I said a few minutes ago because I misquoted Mom. I said that Mom said that Representative King was her favorite Member of Congress. That's not what Mom said. Mom told me that I was still her favorite Member of Congress. I think she even said that I was the best looking. But what she did say, Mr. Speaker, was that Representative King was the best speaker, and I was highly offended by that, but he is a pretty good speaker. And Mom, here he comes. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa, Representative Steve King, my classmate.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I just have to weigh in here just a minute because, Mr. Speaker, my favorite country singer, Merle Haggard, sung a song about that stew. I think he called it ``Rainbow Stew,'' if I'm correct.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I think we're very, very fortunate to have heard from the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I think this is an aspect of this that we've not heard enough about and presented in the way that Representative Thompson just explained it. Even we physician Members can't do that. Maybe we can the next time. But I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I thank him for being here tonight and sharing that with us. I want to yield to my colleague from Georgia, Representative Paul Broun for his comments.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Would the gentleman yield for just a second?

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, because I'm following along with him and he's quoting the Constitution accurately. The gentleman, I think, said--of course he did--if he approve, he shall sign it. It's not: if he deem, he shall sign.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is absolutely right. In fact, I think the State of Virginia, the legislature just voted to say, We are not going to require, under the penalty of law, our people to have health insurance. We want them to have health insurance. I thank the gentleman for pointing out the fact that this expansion of Medicaid is crippling States, not only the State of Pennsylvania, rural hospitals as he pointed out, inner city hospitals that are serving the most needy, but in my State of Georgia, our Governor is struggling, is struggling to find ways to pay for this expanded Medicaid and has just announced that it's possible that the reimbursement to the hospitals in Georgia, the rural hospitals, all the hospitals, indeed, and the providers in Georgia, will be cut 10 percent Medicaid reimbursement. The gentleman has already talked about the reimbursement is 60 cents on the dollar. I want to yield back, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman from Iowa to conclude, and I yield to him at this time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. We are getting very close, probably within 5 or 6 minutes of the end of our time. I really appreciate, Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa looking up some of the lyrics of ``Rainbow Stew,'' because, Madam Speaker, if this bill passes, this ``deem and scheme'' passage of this bill, if it passes, I'm sure the Democratic majority is going to think that they are drinking free bubble-ubb and eating that rainbow stew. Well, I guarantee you, Madam Speaker, we referred to my mother a little earlier in the hour, and my mom knows what kind of stew they are going to be eating. And I would also suggest, Madam Speaker, that they're not going to be drinking free bubble-ubb. They're going to be drinking Jim Jones Kool-Aid. This is a toxic stew and a bad drink not only for Members of Congress and members of the Democratic majority who vote ``yes'' on this abomination, but it is horrible for the American people. Madam Speaker, this is not a Slaughter House. No. This is the people's House, and that's what the gentleman from Iowa was talking about. I want to yield a little bit more time to the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, and we have just a few minutes left, and let the gentleman from Iowa conclude. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important we point that out. Approve, not deem. I yield back.