Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. And if the gentleman will yield just for a second, just for the visual effect. Congressman Gingrey also carries it, and I think every Republican--this document is not what we describe as a living, breathing, changing document unless we do it under the rules of the Constitution by amendment, but I wanted to let the gentleman know that I, too, carry this every day. I yield back.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield back to me, and I think that is a very, very good point. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that it, indeed, is stealing our children's futures to have a current debt of $11.2 trillion. A trillion, you can't imagine. I've heard Members describe what $1 trillion is. I won't try to do that tonight. It's unfathomable. Our current debt is $11.2 trillion. It's estimated that in the next 10 to 15 years, if we continue down this road, that debt will be $24 trillion. We'll be paying more interest on the debt than we do on discretionary spending. We'll have no money to defend our country. In talking about that Constitution, when you really look at it, there is nothing in here about spending trillions of dollars for health care or for education, but we just keep spending and spending. But I did want to take this a step further before yielding back to the gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Boozman. We're not only stealing our children's and grandchildren's futures, Dr. Broun--and I know you know this--we are stealing their present. Now, let me explain. First of all, Mr. Speaker, the irony of that is that in the cohort of people age 18 to 29 in this recent election, 66 percent of them voted for then-Senator, now-President, Obama. They elected him. In the 18- to 29-year-old cohort, 66 percent. Of that group, Mr. Speaker, that's the highest plurality for a President ever from that age group. I don't impugn their motive or their vote. That's what's great about this country. I'm not sure why each and every one of the 66 percent made that decision. I'm sure they were, as I was, impressed by then- candidate Senator Obama's youth, his energy, his charisma, his communication skills, and he made promises. He made attractive promises. You know, after 8 years of an administration, people are ready for a change, and he promised them change. Indeed, I think he said a change that they could believe in. My English teacher would have changed that and said a change in which they can believe. But in any regard, it made a good sound bite. Shortly after the President was elected and inaugurated, the President was asked by the media or asked by the minority about these policies of massive government expansion in every sphere, and his response was a glib, Elections have consequences. Mr. Speaker, indeed, elections have consequences. That's what I'm talking about, Dr. Broun, in regard to robbing our youth not only of their futures but of their present, because this bill that guarantees community rating and universal coverage, it drives up the cost of health insurance for all of our young, healthy 18- to 29- to 39- to 45- year-olds who are taking care of themselves, who are exercising, who are not overweight, who don't smoke. Today, they're able--in most States--to be able to get affordable health insurance because their lifestyle is less risky and because their age is less risky. What the President and what Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid and the Democratic majority want to do is have a one-size-fits-all, where the costs for people that are in their fifties--obviously not eligible yet, Mr. Speaker, for Medicare--it will lower the cost of health insurance for them, and that's a good thing. But at the same time, it drives up significantly the cost of health insurance for those low-risk individuals. In fact, today, many young people will choose a low premium, a low monthly premium, you know, maybe $100 a month, with a very high deductible, and they'll combine it with a health savings account. Under this plan, H.R. 3962, they will not be permitted to do that. Mr. Speaker, we are robbing the future of the youth of America. With that, I yield to my friend from Arkansas, Dr. Boozman.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. And also over a 10-year period of time, saves something like $60 billion.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I am holding, as the gentleman said, Mr. Speaker, the letter from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Doug Elmendorf, who says that this Party of No, this Republican Party of No, who has no alternatives, no plan, well, surprisingly, we have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office that says this Party of No has a plan that will actually reduce health insurance premiums by 10 percent across the board.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I just want to say that the Republican alternative that we have, and we can talk about some of the specifics of that as we go on tonight in this hour. Tort reform obviously is one of them; allowing people to buy insurance across State lines is one of them; creating high risk pools within the States is another. Again, there are a number of us here on the floor tonight and we can talk about this. But, overall, the CBO report, the all-important, nonpartisan CBO report, says that it reduces the cost of health insurance premiums 10 percent across the board and saves $61 billion from our deficit over the next 10 years. Our plan works, and it doesn't break the bank. Their plan breaks the bank, and it is an Edsel. They have paid for an Edsel. I will yield back to the gentleman that's controlling the time, but it's a pleasure to bring these facts to my colleagues tonight.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate Dr. Broun yielding to me. And in reference to the gentleman from Michigan, Representative Hoekstra, who just showed that 2,000-page bill and all the bureaucracy that's involved in that, I think it's appropriate for our colleagues to look at this chart that I have here at the desk that Representative Hoekstra is helping me hold; and it shows actually the bureaucracy involved in H.R. 3200. That was about a 1,200-page bill. Now the Pelosi health care reform that the Representative from Michigan just showed us, the 2,000-page monstrosity, these 53 bureaucrats, czarocrats, czarinas, whatever, have grown to about 150. And this is what it takes to grow a bureaucracy to have a Federal Government complete takeover of one-sixth of our economy. And I just think it's appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for all of our Members on both sides of the aisle to understand where the almost $1.1 trillion is going to in this takeover of our health care system. You've got to feed all these animals in this bureaucracy, every one of these czars.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. The gentleman from Michigan is absolutely right. It is not all going to health care. And we are proud to be able to present information this evening, Mr. Speaker, a letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Leader Boehner, the Honorable John Boehner, the minority leader of the House, in regard to the Republican alternative.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of famed Atlanta sports reporter Furman Bisher upon his retirement from the Atlanta Journal Constitution after 59 years. Furman Bisher was born on November 4, 1918, in Denton, North Carolina, and became the editor of the Charlotte News in 1940. During World War II, he honorably serve our Nation from 1941 until 1945. In 1950, Furman Bisher became a sports editor for the Atlanta Constitution, and in 1957 he became sports editor and columnist for the Atlanta Journal and the Sunday Journal-Constitution. Furman Bisher's accomplishments are legendary. He was the president of the Football Writers Association of America in 1959 and 1960 and named one of the Nation's five best columnists by Time Magazine in 1961. Furman was president of the National Sportscasters and Sports Writers Association from 1974 to 1976, and he covered every Kentucky Derby since 1950. He also covered every National Football League Super Bowl, except the very first one played in 1967. As an Atlanta Braves fan, I am particularly grateful for the crucial role Furman played in facilitating the arrival of the Braves baseball team to Atlanta, which was Atlanta's very first professional sports team. Furman Bisher is a member of the Atlanta Sports Hall of Fame, the International Golf Writers Hall of Fame and the National Sportscasters and Sports Writers Hall of Fame, and he was a recipient of Professional Golfers Association's Lifetime Achievement in Journalism Award in 1996. A testament to Furman's reputation from the very beginning can be traced to 1949, when he became the only person since 1919 to secure an interview with ``Shoeless'' Joe Jackson, who had been banned from baseball. Furman Bisher retired from the Atlanta Journal Constitution on October 10, 2009, after 59 years of service, typing his last column on the Royal typewriter that was the instrument of his first Constitution column back in 1950. At age 90, Furman is still going strong, splitting his time between a homestead in Fayette County and a retreat on St. Simons Island with his wife of 21 years, Linda. Furman Bisher's legacy is lasting. He wrote over 10,000 columns in the Atlanta Journal Constitution and hundreds more in newspapers in North Carolina dating back to 1938. He forever impacted sports reporting and the Atlanta sports landscape with his actions and commentary. I know I, for one, like millions of others throughout the years, always enjoyed reading his column, and will deeply miss flipping to the sports section to find what he had to say about the sports news of the day, for it was in 1960 as a freshman at Georgia Tech that I first read his column and every Sunday morning watched his college football roundup in the TV lab at the Sigma Nu fraternity house. I wish Furman and Linda Bisher all the best as they enjoy their retirement.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I request that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman would yield back to me just for a second, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the gentleman, why is that a problem for the States? Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that here in the great Congress, these Halls of Congress, if we want to spend money, if we want to overspend, we just print more money out. I think we have red ink of about $275 billion, and that is why today in the Federal Government we have this debt of $11.2 trillion. Can't the States do the same thing?

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield for just a second, Dr. Broun, in that regard, Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Georgia, this Medicaid increase in Nancy Pelosi's health reform bill, H.R. 3962, what kind of dollars are we talking about here? What kind of burden are we talking about, unfunded mandate that that would put on the State, and how does that come about?

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman would yield, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to have the opportunity to ask the gentleman to share with us a little bit. He is mentioning about this comparative effectiveness research council and how, based on, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, qualified, good, solid research, and to not only recommend to our doctors across the country, the 850,000 of them, many of whom are primary care doctors, and we will hear from another primary care doctor, John Fleming, with us tonight from Shreveport, Louisiana, in just a few minutes. To suggest is one thing, Mr. Speaker, but to mandate based on comparative effectiveness research, which our hardworking men and women, taxpayers of this country, are paying for that, and many, many, if not most of them are making less than $250,000, by the way, Mr. Speaker. But what I wanted to ask Representative Broun to share with us is not only the fact that our seniors, as he suggests, Mr. Speaker, and I agree with him, could get thrown under the bus by this rationing that comes from this comparative effectiveness research study that says, oh, that won't work. Let's do something cheaper, and, you are too old and it is not going to be cost-effective so you don't get it. But I would like for Representative Broun, if he would, Mr. Speaker, to share with us about these pay-fors. Ms. Pelosi and President Obama says it has got to be paid for. He won't add one dime to the deficit. It has to be paid for. I would like for Dr. Broun to talk to us a little bit about where some of this money is coming from, this $1 trillion so this health care reform is paid for. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman would yield back to me for just a second.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Georgia knows of what he speaks because some of my colleagues may not be old enough to recognize that poster, that caricature of the health choices administrator; but, Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce you to Boss Hogg--H-o-g-g I believe it's spelled, from Hazard County, Georgia--or H-a-w-g, I'm not sure. But anyway, I appreciate the gentleman from Augusta and Athens, my good colleague, physician colleague and classmate from the Medical College of Georgia, sharing that poster with us. And I thank him for being with us tonight. Mr. Speaker, I realize that our time is drawing to a close. We've probably got about 5 more minutes. I'm going to be spending the rest of the time concluding tonight. I also want to ask our colleagues to direct their attention to a few posters that I have, a few slides. This first one, of course, is--at the very outset what I wanted to emphasize was that the Republican Party, the loyal minority, if you will, does have a second opinion, and that's what we've been talking about here tonight. I think the most important part of our second opinion--and we listened very carefully, by the way, during the August recess, during those town hall meetings when so many seniors turned out, many of them fragile, so many veterans, many of them of the Vietnam era, World War II, with just multiple health problems and disabilities. They were so concerned about getting their Medicare cut or being thrown under the bus, so to speak, when the government takes over and starts rationing. And what they told us loud and clear is patients don't want government- run health care. They don't want it. They've seen government-run Indian health care, as an example. They've seen many things that the government has run and made a thorough mess of. And this is life and death, this is life and death. And that's why they don't trust the government to run it. Mr. Speaker, our President, it seems to me, is not listening to the American people. In this next slide I want to point out that what they're saying and what they continue to say--in fact, this coming Thursday you're going to see--I don't know how many are going to come to Washington for what my colleagues refer to as a ``house call,'' a house call on Washington; but this is not the physicians making the house call. This is the American public, this is the patients, these are our constituents making a house call on Thursday at noon. I'm not sure whether we are going to have the opportunity to have them gather on the east steps where they can be seen by all, and all Members coming and going as we come to the floor and debate and vote on this, the most crucial issue that's been before us, I don't know, maybe in the history of this Congress, certainly in the 7 years that I've been here. But we're going to see a lot of people coming from all across this country. Whether they're constituents from Democratic districts or Republican districts, they're going to be here, they're going to be here. My colleague is going to talk about that, I think, in this next hour. Mr. Speaker, I would say to all my colleagues, you ought to tell your constituents to come. Get on a bus, drive up here, bring a caravan and tell the Members of Congress and the President and this administration what it is you want and what you don't want. And I know they're going to be saying no government-run health care. They're going to be saying don't cut seniors' care to pay for health reform. We can't even get an annual physical under Medicare. We don't have any catastrophic coverage. We have to pay a $900 deductible before we can even go in the hospital under Medicare. And they're going to say don't raise the deficit. I think they think that $1.4 trillion is quite enough deficit for 1 year. And they're going to say, Mr. Speaker, give us choices, but don't give us mandates. Don't force our young sons and daughters who are straight out of college to have to pay $900 a month for health care they don't need. Allow them, health choices administrator, allow them to pick a high deductible, low monthly premium with catastrophic coverage during the years that they are taking care of themselves and taking personal responsibility. And they're also going to say, Mr. Speaker, and I will say this in conclusion, they're going to say we want you Members of Congress, Democratic majority, Republican minority, we want bipartisan compromise. We think that you ought to go back to the table, take a clean sheet of paper, throw away these 1990 pages. We know you destroyed a lot of trees, but let's start over again with one sheet of paper and do it in a bipartisan way and think first and foremost about the American people and not the next election. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to yield to our other colleague, a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus from Louisiana, the Baton Rouge area, a gastroenterologist, our good friend, Dr. Bill Cassidy.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and for yielding back to me. I wanted to comment on one point he made in regard to the health savings accounts and the catastrophic coverage, the low monthly premium that is affordable, especially for a lot of young people in the job market for the first time and they are paying off their student loans and God knows what other debt they have got. It is a great thing, and it encourages personal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure my colleagues know that one of the key components of the Republican alternative is to say that companies like Safeway that have these programs where if an employee shows personal responsibility and works very hard at wellness, at keeping themselves healthy--like if they're smoking, to stop, if they're overweight, to lose weight, if they have high cholesterol, to change their diet--to do things that would keep them healthy--as an incentive to them, Mr. Speaker--and this is part of the Republican alternative-- the employer, like Safeway and other companies, is able to reduce the out-of-pocket cost to the employee; and the out-of-pocket cost could be the monthly premium or a reduction of the deductible or the copay. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, under current law--HIPAA I think is the law--you can't cut that out-of-pocket expense more than 20 percent. Well, why not? Why not? If you have employees that have skin in the game, so to speak--I guess that's certainly true in regard to the specialty of dermatology--but if they are taking personal responsibility, then we say that an employer ought to be able to increase that discount to those employees up to 40 or 50 percent. Why not? There is not one thing in H.R. 3962 in regard to personal responsibility. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. Also, I see my colleague from Athens is still here. I think he probably, Mr. Speaker, wants to talk about something in the bill called the health choices administrator, a very, very powerful--yes, another czar created by this bill, the health choices administrator. I want to yield to Dr. Broun and let him speak to that because I think he's got a slide that he would like our colleagues to pay attention to. I yield to Dr. Broun.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield back to me, Mr. Speaker, I thank him so much for bringing that factual knowledge to us. Absolutely, this figure that he just quoted, Mr. Speaker, of 5.7 million, I think, additional jobs would be lost because of this bill, it is not something that Representative Broun just pulled out of the air. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President, Christina Roma, is the one that said that. That is where my good friend and colleague from Georgia, Representative Paul Broun, got those figures from. He mentioned one other thing, before I go on to our colleague from Louisiana, and I am sure that we will talk about this as we go on this evening, the health choices commissioner, a very powerful new czar under this program, would say to the employers across this country, you can have anything you want. You can offer any health insurance policy plan you want, Mr. Speaker, as long as what Henry Ford said many years ago, you can get any color of T Model Ford that you want, as long as it is black. I draw my colleagues' attention to this poster I have regarding that assembly line way back in the early part of the 20th century. I thank the gentleman from Athens. At this point I want to yield to a fellow member of the GOP Doctors Caucus from Shreveport, Louisiana, and that is my good friend Dr. John Fleming.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time for clarification, in regard to the Medicare Advantage program that the gentleman from Louisiana was just talking about, I wanted to ask him, Mr. Speaker, if under those Medicare Advantage plans, which, by the way, some 20 percent, 11 million seniors, 20 percent of seniors under Medicare--for some strange reason, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, they pick that as their delivery system of choice because of some of the reasons the gentleman from Louisiana outlined. And I wanted to ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, if that in many cases does not also include prescription drug coverage, which would obviate their need for paying a monthly premium under part B. And I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, before we go to the other doctor from Louisiana, I think the gentleman from Georgia wanted to engage maybe in a colloquy and ask a question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much, and I am proud to spend the next hour as the party of naysayers, as our young colleague from the other side of the aisle just described us. We have, Mr. Speaker, on occasion been accused of being the Party of No. I have a number of colleagues with me this hour, one of them being my good friend and fellow Georgian, fellow physician, Dr. Paul Broun. He and I on a number of occasions just this past Monday, yesterday, I guess, did a number of events together in our great State of Georgia. We said to editorial boards and television stations, we are the Party of No, guilty as charged; but we don't spell it n-o, we spell it k-n-o- w. Maybe we do on occasion spell it ``no'' when we say, Mr. Speaker, we say to the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, that, heck, no, we don't want this form of health care change to one-sixth of our economy with the Federal Government literally going into the exam room with a bunch of bureaucrats and coming in between a doctor and a patient. Dr. Broun and I, Mr. Speaker, and many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle who are part of the GOP Doctors Caucus, there are about 15 of us, 12 M.D.s, some dentists, optometrist, a clinical psychologist and author, we are very proud of our almost 400 years of clinical experience, Mr. Speaker. We are very disappointed, of course, that we were not able to offer some of the knowledge, the k-n-o-w part of knowledge, to this debate. We sent letters, of course, along with many of our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to President Obama, especially after hearing from him in the so-called State of the Union when he really took the opportunity to use this Chamber and to call together a joint session to speak to the Nation on health care and made some very distinct promises in regard to the need for medical liability reform, as an example, which we don't see one word of, essentially, in H.R. 3962. What little bit, what little tiny piece of medical liability reform, adds an insult, Mr. Speaker, to those States that have already enacted, successfully, I might add, medical liability reform like our State of Georgia, like the great State of Texas and the great State of Florida, when it goes on to say these grants, this little minuscule amount of money in the millions, not billions or trillions, which is more applicable to H.R. 3962, when they say none of these grants are eligible for States that have already enacted any meaningful medical liability reform that limits contingency fees for trial lawyers, or has any caps on noneconomic judgments, awards. That's the only medical liability reform, Mr. Speaker, that has ever been proven to be effective in the great State of California that, of course, enacted that legislation called MICRA back in 1978. It's pretty frustrating; it really is. We are here tonight, Mr. Speaker, to speak to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We want to do that in a very respectful way and, again, as I say, to try to impart knowledge to the issue. We have a lot of ideas in regard to what could be done to help improve the greatest health care system in the world that's not perfect. We recognize that, and I think all Members, Mr. Speaker, recognize that in both Chambers. We are willing to work in a bipartisan way given the opportunity. Unfortunately, we have not been given that opportunity. That's why we keep taking advantage of what little opportunities we have like these Special Orders late at night, or maybe 1-minutes. I think on our side of the aisle we have 178 Republicans in this House of Representatives, and I think 120 gave 1-minute speeches today talking about the Republican alternatives, a way to do this, to help make sure that we bring down the cost of health insurance, for those who, if it's 10 million, I don't know the total number, of 300 million people in this country who cannot afford health insurance. We want to bring down the price of the cost of health insurance so they can have access, but also to bring down the cost of health insurance for the 85, 88, 90 percent of people that do have it, but it's just a little bit too expensive. We can do that and that's what we are going to be talking about tonight, Mr. Speaker, about ideas, bills, individual bills. I think there are something like 53. I have introduced legislation over and over. This is my seventh year, my fourth term as my great constituents from the 11th of Georgia know, that would save, as a Congressional Budget Office, not me doing the number crunching, but the nonpartisan, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, hired by Speaker Pelosi, said that, you know, medical liability reform could save $54 billion over 10 years. I mean, that is a significant chunk of money. We all know that a real concerted effort on reducing waste, fraud and abuse could save another $20 billion. From our perspective, from the Republican alternatives that we are offering, we wouldn't spend more than that amount of money. But we would make those two integral parts of the reform that we would offer, and that we have offered, we will continue to talk about. We don't spend $1.1 trillion of taxpayers' money when this country is already $11.2 trillion in debt and that we just got through with the fiscal year, I guess, 2009 fiscal year with a $1.4 trillion deficit, Mr. Speaker, four times the largest previous deficit in the history of this country. To say that, oh, well, look, we have got the numbers here and the Congressional Budget Office says this plan of ours is going to save, over a 10-year period of time, it's going to save $100 billion; but to save 100 billion, we are going to spend 1.1 trillion. You know, when you do the subtraction, I think that makes you, what, 900-and-some-change billion dollars in the hole. My Georgia Tech math, six quarters of calculus, I believe my high school arithmetic would tell me that that's not a real good deal for the American taxpayer. We are here tonight to talk about this, Mr. Speaker. I am proud to have some of my colleagues from the GOP Doctors Caucus, and I want to yield to them. We will engage in a colloquy, and we will have a meaningful hour this evening so that Members on both sides of the aisle, and if there are any folks out there in the good old USA watching, I know there are some elections going on today, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of folks are very interested in, and maybe they will be tuned into that. But in any regard, we appreciate the opportunity. I yield to my good friend and physician colleague from the great State of Georgia who represents Athens and my hometown of Augusta, Georgia, and a fellow classmate at the Medical College of Georgia, family practitioner, my good friend, Dr. Paul Broun.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I yield to Dr. Fleming for any concluding remarks. I would welcome my colleagues to remain on the floor and let's continue this discussion. We have, I think, another 20 minutes.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I certainly know of what the gentleman from Georgia speaks. I had an opportunity last year to visit in Taiwan, the country of Taiwan, our great friends. And they also, like the U.K. and Canada and some other countries, have this government-run single-payer, sometimes referred to as national health insurance. They have a very similar program, Mr. Speaker, to what Dr. Broun was just referring to. And when I was visiting in Taiwan, I made sure that I had an opportunity to visit with the Minister of Health; and I asked them to describe the system to me, and Dr. Broun has just done a great job of sort of a mirror image of what goes on in Canada. And I also had an opportunity to ask some of the Taiwanese citizens about the national health program and what they thought about it. And, Mr. Speaker, here is just a little bit of what they said, their response. And I think my colleagues need to understand this so they can share this information, and I hope they will on both sides of the aisle, with their constituents: They said we really like this system, this national health insurance system, here in Taiwan, which has been in place since 1997. And I said, What's so good about it? And, Mr. Speaker, their response was, well, kind of like what Dr. Broun said, We only have to wait about 5 minutes. The queue is very short. They really get you in quickly, and you get to be seen by a doctor, and in general on average that visit takes about 5 minutes. And, Mr. Speaker, also they said almost every time you leave the office, you have a handful of several prescriptions, which is really good, according to them. Mr. Speaker, of course I'm a physician and I know that in my practice, and my colleagues, I'm sure, experienced the same thing, people want to ask you questions. And a lot of time that's spent you can't charge them for and you don't want to charge them for it, but you want to be able to give them time to ask questions. I said, well, how about if you want to ask the doctor a question? And, Mr. Speaker, the response was, Well, they don't really encourage that because they have a quota of seeing a certain number of patients a day, and if they sort of drag behind and take more than 5 minutes, then their evaluation at the end of the year, Mr. Speaker, is not so good. So it's a mess is what it is. It's an absolute mess. And the reason, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues even bring it up is because this idea, in our opinion, in our humble opinion, of having a public option competing with the private market is so that the big arm--I should say the big foot--of Federal Government can get right there one step away from taking over the entire health care system in this country; and we then, within a very short period of time, 3 to 5 years, have a system very similar to the U.K. and Canada and Taiwan. The American people don't want that, I submit to my colleagues; and that's why we're fighting this tooth and nail and will continue to until we defeat it.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I will yield to the gentleman, and then I will yield to Mr. Fleming so he can finish up and then Dr. Cassidy as well.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the government takeover of our Nation's health care system. It would have a disastrous impact on women and their families. As moms, doctors, nurses, caregivers, and taxpayers, women play a critical role in the health care debate. Eighty-five percent of women are the primary health care decisionmakers in the home. Women overwhelmingly support health care reform, but they don't want reform that will increase their health care costs, that will ration care or that will undermine their ability to make the best health care decisions for their families. Speaker Pelosi's bill empowers government bureaucrats; it increases taxes, and it raises health insurance premiums while using Federal dollars to fund abortions. Mr. Speaker, I support reform solutions that let women, not your government, take over, continue to decide what is best for their families.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I have offered is an important, yet straightforward, amendment. It would simply extend the period in which a physician or a medical group could participate in the Small Business Health Information Technology Financing program from 5 years to 7 years. Mr. Chairman, the promotion and advancement of health information technology should be one aspect of the health care debate upon which most Democrats, Republicans and Independents would agree. While a large portion of the health care debate has been focused on how to extend existing coverage and figuring out who pays for it, health information technology will actually improve the underlying quality of health care, and it also will lower the overall cost by reducing overhead and medical errors. Mr. Chairman, health information technology will not only save dollars but, more importantly, save lives. For this reason, I have long been a proponent of health information technology. Since the 109th Congress, I have introduced the Assisting Doctors to Obtain Proficient and Transmissible Health Information Technology Act, or ADOPT HIT Act, so that we can encourage medical care providers to purchase and implement health information technology with the assistance of an up to $250,000 tax deduction under section 179 of the code. Now the underlying bill provides for Small Business Administration loan guarantees of up to 90 percent, with overall caps of $350,000 for individual physicians or $2 million for physician groups. Even more importantly, a physician or a group of physicians could defer repayment of the loan for up to 3 years. Currently, there is a 5-year window in which a physician could participate in this program. Very simply, as I stated at the outset, my amendment will extend this window from 5 years to 7 years in order to allow physicians more time to see the benefits of HIT and make arrangements to invest in the technology and to participate in this good program. Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and show their support for health information technology and the promise that it offers. I reserve the balance of my time.