Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

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

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I concur with the gentleman. I think there is a certain amount of arrogance, a lot of arrogance, and maybe indeed a certain amount of ignorance. There's a certain amount of shrewdness, too. I want to yield back to the gentleman from Iowa because as he was talking about Otto Von Bismark and the creation of that hammock and that sense of dependency and that toxic stew that I referred to as rainbow stew, I want to yield back to the gentleman because I think he was making some excellent points, and I want to let him continue. I think we have maybe 15 more minutes or so, and I would like to yield back to the gentleman from Iowa

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. We're going to continue during this hour to talk about health care, my colleagues in the previous hour: Mr. Speaker, Dr. John Fleming from Louisiana, a family practitioner of many years, with many years experience; Dr. Paul Broun, a family practitioner. A house-call doctor, one of the rare breeds of physicians in this country still willing to make those house calls; and indeed he continues to do it when he goes home to Athens and the 10th Congressional District, seeing patients out of the goodness of his heart, mostly. We talked about a lot of things. We want to continue this discussion because, Mr. Speaker, you just cannot say it all adequately, I don't think, in an hour. We have been blessed. The good Lord gave us this opportunity for another hour. We gratefully accept it. We'll continue to talk about it. The gentleman who was controlling the previous hour was talking about the magnitude, Mr. Speaker, of this bill. We're not talking about naming a post office or flags flying over the Capitol, for goodness sake. We are talking about one-sixth--one-sixth--$2.5 trillion of our overall economy in this country. One-sixth of it, the amount of money that's spent each year on health care. We're going to let the Federal Government take over that? I don't think so. My constituents say ``no.'' In fact, they say, Heck no. This is, again, as Representative Fleming said, Mr. Speaker, this is not just a little old bill. Bills have varying degrees of significance and importance, but this one is life or death, Mr. Speaker. This is life or death. And we don't want, our patients don't want, our constituents don't want the government in control of that. They don't trust the government. I don't blame them, Mr. Speaker. Why should they when this government is $1.6 trillion worth of red ink in the last fiscal year and has already spent something like $650 billion of red ink in this fiscal year, and we're not even halfway through it. It is unbelievable. We're going to have a good time and try, Mr. Speaker, to enlighten our colleagues, to share our medical knowledge, maybe to show a poster or two. I think one of my colleagues has one up right now, so I'm going to quickly yield to the gentleman from Athens, Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, one day after the health care summit at the Blair House, Peggy Noonan wrote in The Wall Street Journal, and I quote: What the meeting made clear is what the Democrats are going to do, not step back and save the moderates of their party, but attempt to bully a bill through the Congress. This is boorish of them, and they will suffer for it.'' Indeed, Madam Speaker, I think the Democrats will get slaughtered for it. But, unfortunately, the collateral damage is to the health of the American people. I ask all my colleagues, join with me and my constituents in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia and vote ``no'' on this rule and this so-called deeming legislation.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1055, a resolution supporting the designation of the 2nd week of April as National Robotics Week. As co-chair of the Congressional Robotics Caucus and lead Republican sponsor of this resolution, I would like to commend my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for his leadership in robotics and as the chief author of this legislation. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, education is instrumental to our ability to stay at the cutting edge of the global economy. Yet, the United States is falling behind the rest of the world in the number of students that are graduating from STEM fields. Madam Speaker, according to a 2006 Association of American Universities study, 50 percent of students in China receive their undergraduate degrees in natural science or engineering; in Singapore, that number is 67 percent, and 38 percent of South Korea's graduates fall into these fields. Unfortunately, the United States is lagging behind with a staggering 15 percent of graduates in natural science or engineering. H. Res. 1055 reflects the support and understanding that the promotion of robotics will help inspire current and future students to pursue careers in robotics and other various STEM-related fields. In addition to simply supporting the designation of National Robotics Week, this resolution encourages schools, universities, and other robotics companies to use that week as a way to demonstrate the impressive and ongoing technological advancements in the field of robotics. Madam Speaker, as a graduate of Georgia Tech with a degree in chemistry, STEM education is an issue that is near and dear to me, and I am very happy to see this body consider a resolution that supports National Robotics Week. Robotics technology gives students a ``hands on'' learning experience and can provide them with the tools to keep them engaged in STEM fields with the hope that those students will pursue higher education opportunities and careers in those cutting edge fields. I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 1055.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor a very distinguished individual from the 11th District of Georgia, Mr. Terry Lindsey. Terry is not only a dear friend but a very renowned member of the Polk County community. Terry is retiring this March after 31 years of employment with Engineered Fabrics in Rockmart, Georgia. Engineered Fabrics manufactures fuel bladders for many platforms, such as the Blackhawk helicopter and the Abrams tank. Terry's hard work with the company has ultimately helped to ensure the safety of our pilots and of our soldiers who are in harm's way. Terry started with Engineered Fabrics in 1979 as the manager of Contract Management, and 10 years later, he was made vice president of Business Development. He is an integral part of Engineered Fabrics' success, and I know he will be deeply missed by the company. Terry is also a very active volunteer in the Polk County community, serving on the Rotary, and he has been a board member of the Chamber of Commerce for many, many years. He is very committed to the youth leadership committee, often speaking to their graduation classes. Terry is married to his college sweetheart, Jean, is a wonderful father of two, and is a grandfather of four. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to call Terry a friend. I want to congratulate him on his retirement, and I want to thank him for his hard work on behalf of our community and the military.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in January, Georgia's unemployment rate hit a record-high level of 10.4 percent. There could be no clearer proof that the Democrat majority should have long ago shifted this body's focus to the economy and to jobs. Back in Georgia, Democratic Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond said yesterday, ``I'm concerned that thousands of pending government layoffs will further cripple Georgia's struggling private job market. Our elected leadership must come together to develop a bipartisan plan that will balance the State budget and jump-start private sector hiring.'' Mr. Speaker, listen to our State leaders. Unlike the current health care bill, which the Democrats are going to attempt to ram down the American people's throats without any bipartisan input, please do not bring any more legislation to the floor that will raise taxes and kill jobs. Listen to Commissioner Thurmond and work with us. Let's get our economy back on track.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding athletic coach from my hometown of Marietta, Georgia, on the occasion of his retirement. James ``Friday'' Richards had dedicated more than 30 years of his life to Marietta High School, retiring on January 22 of this year as the head coach of the Marietta Blue Devil football team. Coach Friday is also a teacher at the high school and will retire from full-time teaching at the end of this current school year. Coach Friday graduated from Marietta High School in 1972 and went on to play football at the University of Florida. He then spent two seasons in the NFL playing for the New York Jets and the Washington Redskins before coming back to where it all started. Working at Marietta High School is the only job outside of professional football that Coach Friday has ever had. Up until his retirement, he was the longest serving football coach in Cobb County, Georgia. During his 15-year tenure as head coach, Coach Friday compiled a record of 107 victories and 58 defeats. He took the Blue Devils to the playoffs 10 times and won four region titles. Before he became head coach, Friday was a Marietta assistant, first for Coach Ray Broadaway and then for Coach Dexter Wood. Additionally, under Coach Friday, more than 100 players from Marietta have earned college football scholarships. Coach Friday told the Marietta Daily Journal, when announcing his retirement, that the thing that he will miss most about coaching are the kids. Well, Coach Friday, four of those kids were my kids: Billy, now 38 years old; Gannon, 37; Phyllis, 35; and Laura Neill, 33. Where in the world did the time go? Coach Friday, I can tell you that those four children that you mentored and coached, three of them cheerleaders, one of them a wide receiver for the Blue Devils, they miss you, too. It is your attitude of putting students and players first that made you, Coach Friday, such an outstanding teacher and football coach. Mr. Speaker, he will indeed be a tough act to follow.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule, as well as to the underlying legislation, H.R. 4247, the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act. As a former Marietta, Georgia School Board Member and as a grandfather with grandchildren in both public and private schools, I believe that it is critically important that students can feel safe in schools. However, this legislation is not the right way to address this important matter. H.R. 4247 represents a ``Washington knows best'' solution and a one-size-fits-all approach to educational decisions where there is not precedence for federal action. Currently, there are 31 states that have actively taken a role in enacting policies that address the restraint and seclusion of students. Furthermore, 15 additional states--including my home State of Georgia--are planning on addressing this issue this year. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4247 is a gross infringement on states' rights under the 10th amendment to the Constitution. This legislation tells our states that the work they do to keep our children safe is woefully inadequate and leaves them no flexibility to meet the individual needs of their students. Additionally, I have grave concerns about the scope of this legislation as it relates to private schools. On page 9 of the bill, H.R. 4247 specifically defines a school subjected to this legislation as ``public or private'' and ``receives . . . support in any form from . . . the Department of Education.'' Madam Speaker, this clearly undermines the longstanding policy that limits federal intrusion into private schools. If this legislation passes, I fear that private schools will begin to limit services that their students are entitled to receive under federal law as a way to avoid being subjected to the law. Therefore, the federal safety standards afforded to children under H.R. 4247 will come at the sacrifice of the educational experience for those students who choose to be in private schools. Make no mistake; the 10 cases that our colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee examined in their May 2009 hearing on this issue are absolutely tragic. My condolences go out to all of the victims of these horrific acts. There is no doubt that mechanisms should be put in place to protect the safety of both our students and faculty so that tragedies like the ones that have already occurred can be avoided in the future. However Madam Speaker, I do not believe it is the job of this body or the federal government as a whole to tackle this issue when we leave educational decisions primarily to the states. Instead of passing H.R. 4247, we should be encouraging the 19 states that do not have existing policies on student restraint and seclusion to act as quickly and as swiftly as possible so that all states can keep their students safe in schools. Madam Speaker, for the sake of the 10th amendment and states' rights, I ask that all of my colleagues oppose this rule, and I urge the defeat of the underlying legislation, H.R. 4247.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am honored to represent Calhoun High School and want to congratulate the students, faculty, and staff on their achievements thus far this year. Principal Wanda Westmoreland, a 17-year Calhoun veteran, has told me that Calhoun's victories in the athletic arena are a direct result of academic achievements in the classroom. Principal Westmoreland leads by example and will be greatly missed when she retires at the end of this school term. Her leadership is one of the reasons Calhoun was listed as one of America's top schools by the U.S. News and World report. Additionally, Calhoun's One Act Plays were the regional champions this year and placed third overall in the state of Georgia. On the athletic side, I'd like to recognize the following Yellow Jacket teams for their achievements this year: Varsity Football, runner-up in the State Championships and nine time Regional Champions; Competition Cheerleading, the three time State Champions; and, Calhoun wrestler--Hunter Knight--who won a state championship this year. Congratulations to Calhoun High School for their accomplishments on and off the field this year. Keep up the great work and go Jackets!

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Dr. Roe, thank you so much. I hope you will be able to stay with us for a little bit more time tonight as we continue the colloquy. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to show a few slides to our colleagues. Of course, starting with the Second Opinion, the subtitle: When will the White House listen to the American people? When, indeed, Mr. Speaker, will the White House listen to the American people? In the second slide, let's just go back to last August, 7 months ago. Americans attended town hall meetings across the country in record numbers. In fact, my town hall meetings, instead of having 40 or 50 people there, I had 1,500. And I'm sure other Members experienced the same thing. These people were asking that the Democratic majority stop their plans to implement a government takeover of health care. And here's a quote, Mr. Speaker, from ABC News, and the date is August 5, 2009. That's when all these town hall meetings were going on across the country. I quote from the newspaper, There were no lobbyist-funded buses in the parking lot of Mardela Middle and High School on Tuesday evening, and the hundreds of eastern Maryland residents who packed the school's auditorium loudly refuted the notion that their anger over the Democrat health care reform plan is manufactured. That's what ABC News was saying back 6 months ago. Now fast forward to today, March 2, 2010. Americans are still trying to be heard by the White House and Democratic leaders as Democrats continue to try and ram a government takeover of health care through the Congress by any way possible. This is a quote from Rasmussen, the polling guru. Everybody's familiar with the Rasmussen poll: February 23, 2010, just last week, Voters still strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats and think Congress should focus instead on a smaller plan, smaller bills, that address problems individually rather than a comprehensive plan. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's what we're talking about tonight, that's what Dr. Roe is discussing, that's what I said in my opening remarks, about had I been at the Blair House, what I might have said, very respectfully, to the President, to Majority Leader Reid, and to the Speaker of this House of Representatives, Ms. Pelosi. The American people were not an angry mob, as they are not today, my colleagues. They are men and women, a lot of seniors, yes, very concerned about the massive takeover by the government. And that is the thing, the bottom line that the people fear the most, is having government take over every aspect of our lives. Indeed, colleagues, we are talking about, and we all hear this quote and don't argue with the statistics, this is one-sixth of our economy; $2.5 trillion a year on health care. We see the same thing, quite honestly, happening in education. We have a bill on the floor tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, a bill with a special rule in regard to telling school systems all across this country how they can discipline children. I am sure there are some concerns and there may be some abusive behavior in very small pockets and a small problem. But we have this attitude up here, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government knows best, and we have these knee-jerk reactions to things, and all of a sudden we make this huge mountain out of a mole hill, I think, in some instances and say the Federal Government has to take over; that school boards, elected by a local community, can't run their local schools. I think that is hogwash, quite honestly. The American people have spoken about this. They want us to correct the things that they can't deal with themselves. And yes, they want us, Mr. Speaker, to rein in the abuses, in this instance, of the health insurance industry. But you have to understand, colleagues, that there are a lot of good, honest, ethical men and women in this country who work in the insurance industry, whether they are selling life insurance or property and casualty, or health insurance. Independent agents. And there are some great health insurance companies, large companies, small companies, probably over 3,000 total. We need to be careful that we're not beating up on them so bad that all of a sudden we destroy an industry, and how many hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I would be proud to yield for comments from my colleague from Tennessee.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Dr. Roe, yielding back to me for a second, we've already talked about the health savings plans and expanding that and allowing people--if there still is an exchange, and you and I have talked about it, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Roe and I have talked about it, and I hope our colleagues understand this. We don't think that we have to have this exchange, this expensive exchange where you have to subsidize people's premiums. That's how the President was able to say last week, Mr. Speaker, that 47 percent of people in the exchange will be paying less than they currently are for their health insurance. Well, yeah, they are paying less out of their pockets, but they're reaching in everybody else's pockets--John Q. Taxpayer--to help them pay those premiums. So really when you do a little fact check on that, you find that most people under that plan are going to end up paying more. And what Dr. Roe is talking about in the four or five things he mentioned, of course, even if you had an exchange, you shouldn't say to people that the only kind of policy that they can buy is a first dollar coverage, the most expensive kind of policy, when young people, healthy people and people who are just out of college or just out of high school or just back from the military and they are trying to pay for a car, they're trying to rent an apartment or buy a little starter home, or buy an engagement ring for their fiancee, and the last thing they can afford is $15,000 a year for a first dollar coverage health insurance plan that they don't even need. So what's still in the bill, it prohibits a person from having one of these plans.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. It's counterintuitive, isn't it, Dr. Roe? And I yield back to you.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Dr. Roe, if you will yield back to me for just a second, I want to continue on this point that you are making. I think what you just said, if I understand it correctly, Mr. Speaker-- what Dr. Roe just said is that if we would allow individuals to go online, they wouldn't have to get in their car. I wouldn't have to drive to Tennessee to apply, to sign up for a health insurance policy that's offered in Tennessee. From the comfort of your home, you do it over the Internet. And if we would simply allow that--and also, by the way, allow small employers that maybe employ 10 or 15 people to come together with others in what we refer to as an association--and very quickly, you could get to 1,000 or more and form an association, and that way you spread the risk. You have some people that have preexisting conditions. You have some people that have had a heart attack or already have high blood pressure or whatever. But if you spread it among 1,000 people, you have lots of healthy people in that association, so you are able to bring down the cost. And the same thing with individuals being able to buy across State lines because they're part of a--people all across the country in every one of the 50 States might be getting on that computer and buying a plan that's offered in the State of Tennessee or in the State of Georgia. And that way, as I understand what Dr. Roe is saying, Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't need these exchanges because that would be the exchange. And then to sort of complete the thought, you also--within every State, or you could come together on a regional basis if you wanted to with neighboring States. You could have these high-risk pools within the State so that individuals that do have these preexisting conditions, these insurance companies, health insurance companies that offer their products within a State, they would have to participate, and they would have to agree that, Hey, you take one high-risk patient; I will take a high-risk patient. You take another one; I will take another one. And do it in a fair and balanced way and not have the premiums be more than, say, 2, 2\1/2\ times the most standard rates. Then if they are low-income, but yet they don't qualify for Medicaid because they're not quite that low but they certainly can't afford the premium, then the State and the Federal Government can help with some subsidies. But not this business of $500 billion worth of subsidies. That's what's causing this bill to be so expensive. In fact, you know, you cut money out of Medicare, $500 billion out of Medicare, tax the American people $500 billion. So, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Roe is offering us--it's a Republican idea, yeah, but it ought to be bipartisan. And we talked about it at the Blair House last week. So we really don't need these exchanges, do we, Dr. Roe? And I will yield back to you.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank Dr. Roe for being with me tonight, Mr. Speaker. There are 14 health care providers on the Republican side. Ten of them are M.D.s. There are five M.D.s on the Democratic side. We have two doctors in the Senate. We probably have 500 years in clinical experience in the aggregate. Let us help. In closing, I want to refer to my colleague who was here a number of years ago, Dr. Roy Rowland, a member of this body when the Democrats were in the majority. Back in the early 1990s, Dr. Rowland, a family practitioner from Dublin, Georgia, he had a bipartisan bill back then that he worked very closely on with his Democratic colleagues and his Republican colleagues, and he presented that bill. I think it was called the Bipartisan Health Reform Act of 1994, and he offered that in lieu of HillaryCare. Unfortunately, the Democratic majority didn't accept it. Don't make the same mistake this time, Mr. President. Let's do it in a bipartisan way and in a small, incremental way.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. That is exactly right, Dr. Roe. I have a daughter who lives in the great State of New York. Her health insurance policy covers so much more than many of the policies cover in the State of Georgia, for example. And it is much, much, more expensive as a result of that. So Dr. Roe makes a good point of buying across State lines. One thing before our time expires, Mr. Speaker, I want to just say again that hope springs eternal. I don't know what the President is going to say to us tomorrow, but I hope that I like what I hear because the American people need relief. But as we stand here tonight, what is still in these bills? Well, a government takeover, that is one thing. Price controls is another. Individual and employer mandates, and I don't know that it is really even constitutional to say to an individual in this country you, under the penalty of law, fines, and jail time, have to buy health insurance. We hope they do, and we hope we create the environment where we can bring down the price and people can afford--maybe it is a health savings account combined with a high deductible, low monthly premium, but to hold a gun to their head and say they have to do it, no, that is not right. That is not constitutional. In the bill, there is no meaningful medical liability reform. Again, hope springs eternal, but the bill puts Washington bureaucrats in charge of defining quality health care. That is where those 32 new bureaucracies do their work. It cuts $500 billion over all Medicare, but $120 billion of that is cut out of Medicare Advantage, and 20 percent of our seniors get their care from Medicare Advantage. Why do they call it Advantage? Because it is an advantage. It covers wellness. It does screening, appropriate screening. It keeps people healthy so they are not spending all of that money in the last weeks or months of their life. Finally, this bill raises taxes to pay for new entitlement programs, and it gives the government-run plan a beachhead to eliminate the private insurance market. And, unfortunately, many of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, have said it loud and clear, whether members of Energy and Commerce, or Ways and Means, or Education and Labor, that they want the government to take over, just like it exists in Great Britain or Canada or other countries. The American people don't want that. They want us to do something in an incremental way, and I think we can do it and do it in a bipartisan way.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority leader for giving me the opportunity to spend some time with my colleagues tonight on the House floor talking about, yes, one of the most important issues not just of the day, but of the year, and in fact the past year-and-a- half, and that is, of course, the issue of health care in this country. Colleagues, I know that we all watched very closely, as did men and women across the country last Thursday, when there was a health care summit at the Blair House. Leadership from both the majority Democratic Party and the minority Republican Party, my party, were invited to the White House, about 20 on each side of the aisle, moderated by none other than the President himself. I think, Mr. Speaker, that that was a good thing. I commend the President for calling that summit. I think that each side, leadership and Members, particularly I think my colleagues from the Senate and our colleagues from the House, the medical doctors, did a great job of explaining their view and position on health care reform, alternative ideas which I think the President listened very carefully to. It is hard to know what actually came out of that particular session, seven hours of dialogue, the whole thing televised. But, again, Mr. Speaker, I think it was good that we showed that there can be some comity and bipartisanship in this body and in the Congress. Indeed, it was a good opportunity. Well, here we are almost a week later and we get an announcement from the Associated Press just moments ago, Mr. Speaker. I was reading my BlackBerry, and apparently the President is going to come forward tomorrow yet again with some change to the health care plan even different from the 11-page change to the Senate bill that was posted on the Internet last Monday in anticipation of the health care summit on Thursday. I don't know what that is going to say, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what the President has in mind. Maybe we will spend a little bit of time this evening talking about that. I am pleased that my good friend and fellow physician co-member of the House GOP Doctors Caucus and fellow OB-GYN specialist from the great State of Tennessee, Dr. Phil Roe, has joined me, and we will engage in a colloquy. But I just wanted to kind of set the stage tonight for our colleagues and say to both sides of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, and also to the administration, especially to the administration and to the President, again, I am not sure what we will see tomorrow, Mr. President. I look forward to very carefully looking at any proposals, especially if they are adopting some Republican ideas so that we can do these things, these important things for the American people, in a bipartisan way. We were elected to do that. But I would very much liked to have been at the Blair House last Thursday. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the President knows that, or at least some of his staff knows. I don't know if he ever got to read my letter when I requested to come and speak on behalf of the Doctors Caucus in the House on the Republican side. I didn't get to go, but Dr. Charles Boustany, our colleague from Louisiana, a cardiothoracic surgeon, was there, and did a great job. I am awfully proud of Dr. Boustany. But had I been there, had I had that opportunity to get my 5 minutes of fame or whatever, I would have said to the President, You know, one thing that you have done that I think is probably one of the most important things in regard to health care reform, that is money that was allocated, $19 billion in fact, to try to get electronic medical records in the hands of every practicing physician in this country, all 750,000 of them, and every hospital in this country, so that we could clearly reduce medical errors, we could ultimately save lives, and, in the long run, save money. This is an idea that I think, at least from this Republican viewpoint, Mr. Speaker, is bipartisan, and I commend the President. President Bush had the same idea, and again it was a plan to get fully integrated medical records by the year 2014-2015. So we can do things in a bipartisan way. There are a number of other things that Dr. Roe and I would like to talk about, Mr. Speaker, tonight. We don't need to spend $1 trillion. That expenditure on electronic medical records is something like $20 billion. Now, $20 billion is a lot of money, but it is a long way from a thousand billion, and that is a conservative estimate by the CBO: $1 trillion for this 2,700-page reform. We don't need that, Mr. Speaker. Again, I am not sure what the President is going to say tomorrow, but I hope that finally he will be listening to the American people and realize that there are some targeted things that were mentioned, yes, by Democrats and Republicans, but the President I think wants to adopt some Republican ideas, and we are talking about things especially like medical liability reform. The CBO gave a very conservative estimate of saving $54 billion over 10 years. But if it is the kind of medical liability reform that is comprehensive, fair, absolutely fair and balanced, so that patients who are injured by practitioners of medicine and by facilities that are practicing below the standards of care, that they absolutely have a redress of their grievances and a decent recovery. But the President, Mr. Speaker, in the bills that we are currently looking at, the House and Senate bills, there is just a pittance, like $25 million worth of grants to States to look at it, to study. We keep creating these study commissions, but not even allowing States who have already capped noneconomic damages, so-called pain and suffering--in many instances these are these frivolous lawsuits--those States wouldn't even be eligible for any of this $23 million in grants. So I hope his comments tomorrow include adoption in a new bill or a modification, and hopefully a vast shrinkage of the existing bill, and that it is true medical liability reform. Because that's the only way we save lives and save money and bend that cost curve down in the right direction. So with those opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield time to my colleague from Tennessee, Representative Phil Roe.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for pointing that out. This is the kind of wisdom that we need to hear and need to stop and think. Certainly Dr. Roe would agree, and I fully agree, Mr. Speaker, that if insurance companies are rescinding, is the word that is used, a rescission action, rescinding a policy after the fact. Somebody has got health insurance for their family, including their children, and they have a teenage daughter, and she, lo and behold, has to go into the hospital for an emergency appendectomy. The surgery is a success, everything goes fine, and they expect that the insurance company will pay whatever is above the copay and the deductible. And then all of a sudden they are told, ``Well, no, we've looked back through your policy that you took out, Dad, for the family 10 years ago when your teenager was just 3, and you gave us the wrong birth date, or you failed to dot an I or cross a T, and therefore this $20,000 bill, you're on your own, buddy.'' Well, that has to stop. Of course it has to stop. And this also not allowing people with preexisting conditions, particularly if they are in the individual market, just make it so impossible, either deny or make the premiums four times the standard rate, and that essentially is denial, too, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? Well, Dr. Roe and I agree, and everybody in this body, all 435 of us agree that we need to stop things like that. Those things can be done, but it doesn't take 2,700 pages and 32 additional Federal bureaucracies to deal with that. Again, I don't know what the President is going to say tomorrow. I read that AP report that he is going to indeed address four subjects in maybe yet another bill, or maybe in addition to the current Senate bill, that were brought up last week on Thursday at the Blair House by the Republican Members that were there. Let me just on my BlackBerry, Mr. Speaker, refer to that. And just for my colleagues, maybe some of you had already read that. The proposals President Obama listed are four: Number one, sending investigators disguised as patients to uncover fraud and waste. I want to get back to that, Mr. Speaker, in just a minute. Expanding medical malpractice reform pilot programs. Sounds good to me. Increasing payments to Medicaid providers. Absolutely. If we are going to have any Medicaid providers, I hope we will do that. And last, the fourth thing, and I am really interested in reading about this because I'm most in favor of it, expanding the use of health savings accounts. But I do want to go back to that first one, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Sending investigators disguised as patients to uncover fraud, waste, and abuse. I know that was brought up at the Blair House by a Republican, but, quite honestly, if we don't already, Mr. Speaker, have enough Inspector Generals within CMS and other government programs, health care, TRICARE, the veterans program, CHIP program across the country, I think we could do a better job with combating waste, fraud and abuse than sending undercover patients into doctors' offices. I haven't practiced in a while, but I spent 31 years, Mr. Speaker, as a medical practitioner, it has only been 7 or 8 years since I practiced, but I worried all the time about making sure that I didn't make a mistake, that I ordered the sufficient number of tests. And in fact, I practiced like everybody else, probably Dr. Roe as well, I welcome his comments on this, what we call defensive medicine. And many times getting a blood test, or an x-ray, or a CAT scan, or an MRI, or something that I knew wasn't necessary. I hoped that it wouldn't be harmful to the patient. If you draw too much blood, you can certainly turn them into an anemic patient. And, Lord knows, we had a hearing just last week, Mr. Speaker, in the Energy and Commerce Committee about x-ray exposure, particularly from MRIs and CAT scans and things that you really don't know if 10, 15, 20 years from now if that exposure couldn't indeed lead to a cancer that that patient might not otherwise have contracted. So all of that defensive medicine that we practice, and my colleagues, the OB/GYN specialists, are in town this week, and I have had the conversation with them, so I know that we need to stop that. But this business of saying we're going to disguise people and have them go into a doctor's office as a fake patient, I sure hope they don't go in as a fake patient and decide to have a hemorrhoidectomy to see whether or not the doctor is qualified. Some of this stuff is a little bit ridiculous, I think. I want to yield to my colleague from Tennessee, because he's got almost as much clinical experience as I have. I would like to know how he feels about that particular aspect of reducing waste, fraud, and abuse.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Dr. Roe, if you will yield back, and I think you make a good point. And I hear the same argument, Well, only people that are well-to-do, well-off, high-income people can afford to have a health savings account in combination, Mr. Speaker, with that low monthly premium and a high deductible that Dr. Roe just explained so well. But I have seen statistics, and I think they're accurate, that 50 percent of people that have these high deductible, low monthly premium combined with a health savings account make less than $50,000 a year. And some 75 percent of them make less than $75,000 or $80,000 a year. So we're not talking about wealthy people. I think Dr. Roe makes a good point. By the way, Mr. Speaker, as I was reading in the Associated Press about what the President might include tomorrow, these four things I did ridicule a bit, this idea of combating waste, fraud, and abuse with fake patients. I have embellished or maybe overstated, but I wanted to make a point, Mr. Speaker. But as far as expansion of health savings accounts, I say to the President, Kudos, Mr. President. I am looking forward to hearing about that, and I hope that this report from the Associated Press is true. I also hope, Mr. President, that the report about expanding the medical liability reform is true, although I would guess that it doesn't go nearly far enough, because this report, if it's accurate, Mr. Speaker, says instead of $23 million worth of grants to States to enact pilot programs on alternative ways of dealing with medical liability issues, it increases that amount to $50 million. Well, that's not much, and that's not really, I don't think--and I think Dr. Roe would agree with me--going nearly far enough to do what we need to do in regard to caps on pain and suffering judgments, which sometimes can be in the millions of dollars in a frivolous case. And then a couple of other issues, Mr. Speaker, regarding medical liability reform. The defendant in a medical malpractice case could include somebody that was just covering--let's say as an example, Dr. Roe has a patient and asked Dr. Gingrey to step in and say hello to that patient on Sunday morning while Dr. Roe takes his family to church, and Dr. Roe is going to operate on that patient the next day. Dr. Gingrey just walks by and says hello to the patient and lets her know that Dr. Roe will be in later in the evening, and that's the only contact that Dr. Gingrey has with this particular patient. Well, if something, Mr. Speaker--and it's not likely that anything would go wrong under the care of a doctor like Dr. Roe, but sometimes things do, and that Dr. Gingrey who just really had essentially nothing to do with the patient's care would be drug into court. And if he or she had the deepest pockets and the most liability coverage, then they would be the ones that would be responsible for most of the judgment and settlement or whatever. So we need some robust reform. And I hope that the President, Mr. Speaker, is talking about that. I yield back to my friend to see what his thoughts are on that.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Thank you for sharing that with our colleagues in regard to the tele-town hall meeting and the poll that you conducted with your constituents in Tennessee. You referred to this next slide that I have got titled, and I want to point it out to my colleagues, ``What Americans Want.'' Just like Dr. Roe said, poll numbers, 73 percent of Americans think Congress should start over on health care reform, or if they can't start over and get it right, do nothing. I mean for goodness sakes, this business of when you are talking about health care and somebody comes along and says to you, ``Do something, even if it's wrong,'' think about that for a minute. Do something even if it's wrong? Regarding health care? Regarding an operation? Regarding a delivery of a child? No. Don't do something even if it's wrong. You better get it right. And if you can't get it right with what your plan is, drop the plan. Then going on the bottom half of this slide, Mr. Speaker, 56.4 percent of people indicated they would prefer Congress to tackle health care reform on a step-by-step basis, not take the comprehensive approach as embodied in legislation that passed the House and Senate last year but is now stalled, thank God, for the past month. I want to yield to my colleague so he can further elaborate on this.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This Declaration of Health Care Independence that Representative King just so eloquently described--and I love the format--Mr. Speaker, when you look at those principles, those 10 principles that Representative King just described, these were--and are--promises that this majority, this Democratic majority--Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid and, indeed, President Obama--have said on so many occasions over the last--well, really 2 years now, because he was saying these things as he was asking the American people to give him an opportunity to bring ``change you can believe in'' as the next President. Indeed, he was successful in doing that. But many of these principles, if not all of them, were promised by the President. I don't know what the total number, Mr. Speaker, of signatures on the Declaration of Health Care Independence Representative King has. I think it approaches 100. I'm not going to ask him specifically how many of those are Republican versus how many are Members of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. But golly, I would think that Speaker Pelosi would love to sign this Declaration of Health Care Independence. Indeed, yesterday at the Blair House, in her summary remarks, she said that absolutely not one dime of taxpayer money was going to fund abortions. I don't know if she really believes that, Mr. Speaker. I guess the proof of the pudding will be whether or not she can get that contingent of people that agreed with Representative Bart Stupak and insisted that the House version of health care reform be amended such that there was absolutely a provision that would make sure the Hyde amendment was not violated, that being that no public dollars would go toward the funding of abortion. So I just bring that point up. And I would say to Representative King, I'm sure he's going to continue to try to get signatures, but this ought to be bipartisan. And maybe he has already done that; maybe, Mr. Speaker, he can explain that to us. But from my vantage point, I don't see Speaker Pelosi's name on the bottom of the declaration, but hope springs eternal. I yield back to my colleague.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding back to me. I realize time is getting short, but thank you for a few more moments. Of course, I think it's important that our colleagues understand that those 13 members of the whole-in-the-wall gang--I think our colleague from Iowa was referring to the esteemed Rules Committee. It's just one more opportunity that we don't have to get our amendments made in order so that we can bring them down on the floor, whether we are Republicans in the minority or Democrats in the majority who are very concerned about many provisions in this bill. Yet, you know, they don't get to have an up-or-down vote, which is totally wrong. I just want to say, just within the past week, I got a call from a former physician Member from Georgia, from Middle Georgia, Dr. Roy Rowland, who served with distinction here for about 12 years. He was here during the HillaryCare debate. In a very bipartisan way, Dr. Rowland, along with Dr. Ganske from Iowa and other Members, had some great ideas in regard to not only bringing down the cost, Mr. Speaker, but also in regard to making sure that more people had not only an insurance card--you know, that doesn't guarantee you access to care--but that they had an opportunity, through expanded community health centers, which were not necessarily government subsidies, to pay on a sliding scale depending on what their incomes were. Obviously, Medicaid patients, many of them, were seen in community health centers. Also, Dr. Rowland had the idea of having medical liability reform-- Dr. Rowland, a family practitioner from Dublin, Georgia. I just mention him because I would say to the President and to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: we can do this. Yes, let's unclench the fists. Let's get away from what we were trying to cram down the throats of the American people that they clearly don't want. Let's start over with good ideas like Dr. Rowland had 16 years ago and like, I think, many of my colleagues have today on both sides of the aisle. I yield back for concluding remarks from my colleague from Iowa.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman from Iowa will yield just for a second on the gentlelady's point.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. The gentlelady from Minnesota, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely right. And it was interesting, in that discussion yesterday that was a little tete-a-tete between the President and Senator Alexander about whether or not the health insurance premiums for people within the exchange, as they were forced, according to provisions in the law, if it becomes law, the requirement that everybody has health insurance--it was pointed out by the President that many in the exchange would be paying less for their premiums. But as we deciphered through that--and I think maybe the President finally came to the realization that what Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee, a part of the Republican team, the point he made was absolutely right, the premiums were coming down, Mr. Speaker, only because some of those that were purchasing as individuals through the exchange mechanism were getting government subsidies. So if you subtract the subsidy from the cost of their health insurance policy-- that by law they would be forced to purchase, even if they didn't want to--then, yeah, the price would come down. But it ain't free, Mr. Speaker. That subsidy is paid for by, guess who? John Q. Taxpayer, that's who. And that's where the big cost driver in this bill is. That's why the bill costs $1 trillion over 10 years, all these subsidies. So to suggest that these individuals, albeit forced to purchase health insurance, are going to get a reduction in their premium, absolutely not true when you add what they pay and what their taxpayer friends, men and women of this country that are busting their you-know- whats to try to support themselves and the people in the exchange, pay, the price goes up. I yield back to my colleague.