Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Thank you very much. Just momentarily, before we go to east Georgia and Dr. Broun, I did want to show in graphic form on this next slide, this poster that I have--my colleagues, when I talked about the employment-based health insurance, the 119 million, here they are in this pretty green box here, chart, showing that 119 million in these private plans under this so-called public default plan will end up over here in this nice orange bar graph showing something like 132 million people on the government plan. And as our colleague from Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy, was talking about earlier, if that's the model that we want, that's the model that right now, 33 percent of physicians have closed their practices to Medicaid, 12 percent have closed their practices to Medicare. Why? Because these artificially low reimbursement rates do not even cover the doctor's expenses. Physicians want to give their time out of compassion and to treat the poor who cannot afford health care through no fault of their own, but they can't keep the doors open. They're small business men and women as well, and they have salaries to pay. They have insurance to provide. So it's just a matter of going down a road that's not sustainable. Representative Scalise, thank you for yielding me time, and I yield back to you so you can yield to Dr. Broun.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Texas for yielding and for giving me the opportunity to join with him on the floor tonight as we talk to our colleagues about our impression of the first 100 days. I was actually on ``Fox News Sunday,'' just yesterday, basically talking about the same thing, and my comment then was: well, you know, what bothers me more than the first 100 days and the performance of the President is the fact that yesterday was National Debt Day. It was the day on which the Federal Government had spent every bit of the money that we've taken in. All of the revenue has been spent on expenses, on discretionary spending and on mandatory spending, and now, for the rest of the year, it's borrowed money. We're going to be spending borrowed money for the rest of the year. The striking--shocking almost--thing about that, Mr. Speaker, is that this is occurring 3\1/2\ months earlier this year, the gentleman from Texas, than it did last year. So, yes, there's no way that I could stand before my colleagues and say that I would give the President a good grade on this. My worthy opponent in the majority yesterday, as we always have a Republican and a Democrat on these television shows, said: Well, you know, the President ought to be scored on a curve. I guess he meant compared to the last President--President Bush and the previous administration. In the opinion of this gentleman, the President should get an A on the curve. Now, he's a Harvard-educated lawyer, an accountant, and I think he, maybe, even has a Ph.D. In the Ivy League, I don't think they give anything, Mr. Speaker, but A's and B's. I went to Georgia Tech, and there is no curve. There is no grade inflation at Georgia Tech. I hope my friends at Georgia Tech won't get on to me about this. I'm a Georgia Tech graduate, and I speak only for myself, but I would give him at best a C-minus. One of the things that bothers me the most is this recent release, this declassification and release of these memos that were written by attorneys in the previous Justice Department in regard to enhanced interrogation to try to make sure that anything we did as a country was done legally and within the bounds of the law and within the bounds of our great Constitution. I'm sure they struggled--it was a difficult thing to do--and in good conscience said to the President: This is what you can do. This is what you cannot do. We're in a desperate situation. We have just been attacked. Three thousand or more people were killed when the Twin Towers came crashing down after the Islamic extremists-- the terrorists, global terrorists--I guess we call that overseas contingency operations now.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I guess we can no longer talk about terrorism. We were in a desperate situation, Mr. Speaker, and to think that the President--I read this in the paper about how he spent 5\1/2\ hours with his top-level people over in the West Wing, debating pro and con whether or not to release these memos--to declassify them and to embarrass, I guess, the previous administration and our country to the world. After 5\1/2\ hours of debate, pro and con, the President made a decision to release those memos, and then of course said: But now, you know, we need to move forward. I'm a leader--and I hope and pray that he is--who wants to look to the future. We've got a lot of problems. This economy is terrible. With everything we've done, we're just right back to where we were, you know, as far as the Dow goes and as far as continuing to lose jobs. So we need to move forward and not focus on the past. We're not going to be prosecuting these people because what they did they did in good faith. Then, what, 6 days later, all of a sudden, he said: Well, maybe I'm not so sure about that. Mr. Speaker, this is dangerous stuff, and I think the President really needs to rethink this. This business of gotcha and saying that, you know, everything is the fault of the previous administration, I think, has got to stop. If he wants to get a good score on his first 100 days, well then, let's start thinking about the next 100 days. I'm ready to give him a good score if he--the President, Mr. President, the 44th President of the United States--doesn't try to take over our health care system and doesn't bring us towards socialized medicine and a single-payer system, if he doesn't tax the middle class to death with this carbon trade scheme, regime, European Union idea, that, I think, is crazy in these economic times. If he wants a decent score in the next 100 days--and I'll yield back to my colleague--then hopefully he will and this Congress will and this majority will reject these ideas as we move forward.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of House Resolution 247. This Resolution expresses support for the designation of March 22, 2009 as ``National Rehabilitation Counselors Appreciation Day.'' I am particularly pleased to be able to join my good friend, Chairman Ike Skelton, on this important Resolution. Since my first days in the Congress, Chairman Skelton has been a good friend and I have worked with him on a number of issues critical to our nation's defense. It is a particular honor to work with Chairman Skelton in bringing this Resolution to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 247 recognizes the hard and important work of our nation's rehabilitation counselors who day in and day out improve the lives of those who are in need of rehabilitation either from an injury or from a permanent disability. These counselors play an integral role in helping people re-establish control over their daily lives by managing the personal, social, and vocational effects of their disabilities. Recognizing the importance of multiple sources of support, rehabilitation counselors work both with individuals and their families to plan and implement rehabilitation programs that fit their needs. Counselors often make arrangements for medical care, job training, and job placement services with the aim of achieving the best possible quality of life. Mr. Speaker, physical disabilities do not discriminate and can affect anyone or any family. Many of us have family members or friends who suffer from disabilities that shape their everyday life. Chairman Skelton himself is a testament to the positive effect of rehabilitation counseling. In fact, I was pleased to join Chairman Skelton a few years back in Warm Springs, Georgia--which at the time was part of the 11th Congressional District. We were there because in his youth, Chairman Skelton himself benefited from rehabilitation and therapy for his own disability. I know this Resolution has particular and personal importance for him as he remembers those doctors and counselors who were so helpful to him. Mr. Speaker, in this life, we often face challenges that we cannot overcome alone. Accordingly, we have an obligation to recognize and celebrate those individuals who spend their lives making other lives better. I call on my colleagues to support this Resolution in gratitude for our nation's rehabilitation counselors. I yield back.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I certainly want to pay tribute to Chairman Waxman in regard to the work that he has done over these many years, 10, at least, in regard to trying to help our society rid themselves of, really, the scourge of smoking cigarettes and many health care problems that that leads to. I don't think that there's any question in anybody's mind about that. And certainly the Surgeon General's warning, very profound, clear warning on a package of cigarettes, should bring their attention to that every time they light up, whether we're talking about young adults or at any age group. And leading to lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, maybe better known as emphysema. So I commend Chairman Waxman very much. I think his heart is in the right place, and what he's trying to do is very credible. But I do feel that Representative Buyer, from Indiana, and his substitute amendment, will be presented shortly. I really feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is very likely a better way. And so I do rise in strong support of the Buyer amendment in the nature of a substitute. Despite decades of intense efforts to eradicate the practice, still more than 40 million American adults continue to smoke cigarettes, and that is likely to remain the case, unfortunately, for decades to come. All tobacco products are harmful, but the health risks associated with cigarettes are significantly greater than those associated with the use of smoke- free tobacco and nicotine-only products. So, given these facts, an increasing number of public health experts advocate adopting a tobacco ``harm-reduction'' approach like that proposed in the Buyer amendment that will lower the health risks associated with using tobacco or nicotine. A growing body of science shows that smokers who switch to smokeless tobacco products can significantly decrease their risk of tobacco- related illness and death. A World Health Organization Study Group wrote last year that: ``Smokeless tobacco products do not cause the lung diseases causally associated with the use of combusted tobacco products such as cigarettes, pipes and cigars.'' Scientific studies show that even the risk for cancers of the mouth and the throat are higher for smokers than for those who use tobacco products that do not burn. Year after year, this body has considered tobacco regulation that fails to recognize the significant progress that can be achieved by adding this harm-reduction component to tobacco-control efforts. An article last year, Mr. Speaker, in the Journal of Health Care Law and Policy correctly concluded that, and this is a quote, ``Ignoring harm reduction is simply not a viable option as there is no question that it is possible to provide massively less toxic alternative products.''

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, a 2007 article in the International Journal of Drug Policy noted that ``A pragmatic, public health approach to tobacco control would recognize a continuum of risk and encourage nicotine users to move themselves down the risk spectrum by choosing safer alternatives to smoking, without demanding abstinence.'' The Buyer amendment presents us with the opportunity to institute that type of pragmatic approach. It offers a stringent regime under which harm-reduction strategies can augment and leverage continued efforts to prevent tobacco use, and to encourage current smokers to quit. So, as a physician who deeply cares about the health and the welfare of our citizens, I urge you, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to adopt the amendment as our Nation's best option for fighting the disease and the death caused by tobacco in the 21st century.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, if the gentlelady will yield, she kind of perked my interest a little bit there as she was starting to talk about health care. Mr. Speaker, you know I am one of the physician Members of this body, and have practiced a long time--delivering babies in Marietta and in surrounding counties--and I am so glad that health care has been brought up tonight because the President just feels like government-run programs work better than the free market. We are on the verge of seeing Hillarycare all over again. I don't want to totally shift gears here on this subject, but it is such an important point, Mr. Speaker. We don't necessarily try to say that the free market system of health care is perfect or that we don't need to do some things to try to get the 47 million or so who are uninsured in this country health care that is accessible and affordable and portable, that they own, where they can control their own destiny and where we can encourage them to adopt wellness policies regarding their own health. That is a subject maybe for another hour, and I will yield back to the gentlelady from Minnesota. But clearly, we Republicans, the minority party, feel that the marketplace is the best place to solve these problems. And I don't want, Representative Bachmann doesn't want, and nobody in this Chamber should want government motors.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, the gentlelady from Minnesota, I think, put it so well, and I think you and my colleagues would almost have to agree that this sounds so socialistic.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank my colleague for yielding. She brings up such a good point. Mr. Speaker, I don't stand here and say that President Obama is deliberately trying to destroy markets, but as my colleague points out, this, in effect, is exactly what is happening. What will be the result? I hasten to say that what we are talking about here in regard to General Motors and Chrysler and the speech that the President made in regard to what he is doing sounds so much like what was done in this body last week in regard to these bonuses that were paid legally and legitimately. Although, public outrage suggests that the recipients of those bonuses from AIG--because we, the taxpayers, had bailed them out to the tune of $170 trillion--clearly, should voluntarily give those bonuses back. It isn't for us to trample all over the Constitution and to have a trial by legislation of these recipients of the bonuses. A bill of attainment is what article I of the Constitution calls it, or violating the takings clause of the fifth amendment, and we knew that. Every Member of this body, I think, knew exactly that they were voting for something that was unconstitutional, just to sort of show, oh, gosh, you know, we are the fiscally responsible ones. The bonuses amounted to 1/1,000th of the amount of money that this Democratic majority and that even the previous administration had bestowed on this company like it was the only insurance company that existed in the United States of America. I don't get my life insurance from AIG, and here we come along with this plan of telling the CEO of General Motors that he has got to step down. Do you know what I fear, Mr. Speaker? I fear that, once again, this is just posturing to set us up for another bailout. They want more money. General Motors wants more money. I am sure Chrysler does, too. So we hear this plan of, Oh, we're going to really crack the whip and crack down on these egregious folks, like the chairman and CEO of General Motors, and make him step down. I would really like to know-- and hopefully, some good investigative reporter, Mr. Speaker, will find out--what kind of golden parachute he gets as he steps down.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for yielding and also my colleague from New Jersey, my classmate, Representative Scott Garrett. This is the week that we take up the budget, Mr. Speaker, as all of our colleagues know, and we are going to have, we have the Obama version that came over from OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, which crunched the numbers for the President. And it is a budget that calls for, well, I have the numbers right here, Mr. Speaker. And it sort of has a side-by-side comparison of the Obama budget, the House version, which we will take up in this Chamber, and the Senate version. I just noticed, I can't help but just be absolutely astounded, Mr. Speaker, by these numbers. But in the President's budget, he calls for spending $3.67 trillion, $3.67 trillion. That's the 2010 Fiscal Year budget. Now, when the Congressional Budget Office, the bipartisan number crunchers for the Congress, for the House and the Senate, when they looked at the Obama budget, they said, you know, instead of creating something like $7 trillion worth of debt over 10 years, it's going to be $9 trillion worth of debt over 10 years. And we heard on television, Mr. Speaker, immediately, the concern expressed by the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota and also the concern, even, you could see it in his face, the concerned expression on the face of the chairman of the House Budget Committee, John Spratt, our friend from South Carolina, that, goodness gracious, based on these Congressional Budget Office estimates, nonpartisan, that this presidential budget of $3.67 trillion was not sustainable. I think, Mr. Speaker, that's what the Congressional Budget Office said. This level of spending is not sustainable. So I really expected some significant cuts in the budget proposed by the House and proposed by the Senate. And yet, when you look at these side by side, as I said at the outset, the President Obama budget $3.67 trillion, the House budget which Mr. Spratt will present to us in the next couple of 3 days, $3.55 trillion, the Senate version, $3.53 trillion. Well, to my surprise, there is not much cutting here. 3.67 trillion versus 3.55, the House version, or 3.53, the Senate version, my colleagues, that is a lot of spending and very little cut. I have to do the quick math, and I would say that we're talking about one one-hundredth of a percent, or maybe it's close to one one- thousandth of a percent of cut. So you can posture, you can use a lot of rhetoric about what you're doing in regard to being fiscally responsible. But you'd have to say, and hearing those numbers, well, gee, I guess what the Democratic Congress, who enjoys the majority, the majority party, basically makes some tweaking around the edges posturing, I think, to some extent, but there's no significant difference in the President's budget and what we're going to have to vote on here in the House and also over in the Senate. So I think, to suggest is very, very misleading to suggest that this body, or this Congress, both chambers, is exercising fiscal responsibility. I think these budgets are not sustainable, just as the President's budget is not sustainable. And if my colleague from Minnesota will continue to yield, I've got a slide or two that I want to show, because, Mr. Speaker, I hear so much, and I watched some of the Sunday morning cable programs and network news, where most of the time it's the Senators that are getting interviewed, or the administration. Of course, Geithner was on this weekend, as he's been on a lot with this, what he's doing with the Treasury Department and the recommendations for getting us back on the road to fiscal recovery. But I heard him say, the Treasury Secretary, ``well, you know, we inherited a bad situation.'' Mr. Speaker, I know you've heard it. My colleagues, Mrs. Bachmann, I know you've heard it, you know, this creating a straw man and saying, you know, well, we inherited this mess, talking about the budget or indeed talking about the situation in Afghanistan or Iraq. We inherited this bad policy. But, in regard to the budget, that's where I really wanted to focus my attention. They keep saying that this deficit for the Fiscal Year 2009, which now is approaching 1.8, 1.7, $1.8 trillion, I mean, that's four times as large as any deficit under the Bush administration. Go back and look at 2004 or 2005, 2006. Our deficits were coming down. And the Democrats have been in control, Mr. Speaker, since January of 2007. So you know, when you say that you inherited, well, what party was it that refused to pass nine spending bills in the Fiscal Year 2009? Which party was that? Well, it was the majority party. And the reason that they did not want to pass those bills is because the President, the former President simply said, this is too much spending, and if you send those to my desk, I will veto them. So the Democratic majority, Mr. Speaker, just held back on those spending bills, and we had these continuing resolutions to fund the government because they knew when they got the presidency, which most polls suggested at that point, that they would, and they did, and then brought forward, in the first part of this year, those nine bills that increased spending by 8 percent. If you add the money that was put in the so-called economic recovery spendulus package to the 8 percent, it turns out that on those nine bills we increased the spending by 80 percent. Eighty percent. And so, you can't blame the previous administration for a $1.7 trillion deficit. You know, you can say, well, some of that we voted on in regard to the TARP money, the $700 billion, that vote occurring in October/November time frame of 2008. And you say, well, yes, that added to this deficit. But who was it that voted for that and approved that in the House and the Senate? The Democratic majority. They're the ones that voted for it. A few Republicans, sure. But it was the Democrats that--they could have stopped it. They could have stopped every dime of that $700 billion TARP, Toxic Asset Relief Program which, as it turned out, was never even spent for that. So as we look at what's going on in the future, just as the Congressional Budget Office did, over the next 10 years, you see what we're talking about, these deficits that go out into the future as far as the eye can see. And so at the end of 10 years, our debt is increased--well, real quickly, just another slide to show that. In 2019, that 10-year budget window, we're going from something like almost $6 trillion of debt to 14, almost $15 trillion of public debt by the year 2019. Man, if anything is unsustainable, that is unsustainable. And to show it in a pictorial form, and I think we can bring this home to our colleagues so much with this next poster, Mr. Speaker. President Obama would more than double the Federal debt to $14.5 trillion, with a T. It took 43 presidents, here's their pictures, 43 presidents, 232 years to build up $5.8 trillion in publicly held Federal debt. Under President Obama's proposed budget, over the next 6 years, we're going to add $8.7 trillion to that. These are staggering numbers and, as the CBO says, Mr. Speaker, unsustainable. I just wanted to make sure my colleagues understood what we're talking about here and the magnitude and the significance of this. I'm going to yield back to the gentlelady from Minnesota who controls the time. I know we have other colleagues here that want to speak. And I will enjoy continuing the colloquy during this hour.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. There are worse terms you could apply to it, and the gentlelady may have one that she wants to express. You know, as to this Government Motors business of, look, we have to do this so that people will be confident in the company and will buy these automobiles because now they feel secure in their 3- to 5-year warranty, listen, I would feel so much better with the chapter 11 option and if General Motors had to restructure under the bankruptcy code. Then nobody would lose their jobs. Maybe there would have to be a little cut in pay, and the vendors would take a little haircut, but this company would continue to be viable. I want to just very quickly tell my colleagues about a company that is very important in my district, the 11th Congressional District of Georgia. We have a lot of poultry industry in northwest Georgia, and the big name that you hear about when you think about poultry processing--across the country, in fact, certainly not just in Georgia--is a company called Pilgrim's Pride. People know about Pilgrim's Pride. Well, they're financially struggling, and had to lay off literally thousands of workers and temporarily shut down for about 3 months until they made the tough decision to go into a bankruptcy reorganization under chapter 11. I talked to some of the company executives within the last week when I went back into the district, and they said, Congressman, we're doing fine. Everybody is back to work. We're going to work our way out of this, and we're going to end up being a much stronger company in the long run. That is the magic of the free market, Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly what we are talking about here tonight. I commend Michele Bachmann for her wisdom in presenting this, and I yield back to the gentlelady.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, with the NCAA Basketball Tournament now down to the Final Four, I want to recognize a very talented group of high school student athletes from Smyrna, Georgia, near my home in Cobb County. In this year's Georgia High School Association State final, the Whitefield Academy Boys Basketball team, or the Wolf Pack, upset number one ranked Turner County 69-53 to claim the class A State title. The game was all tied up at the half, but Whitefield opened the second half with a 16-2 run, and they never looked back. Madam Speaker, in the end it was discipline and determination that allowed Coach Tyrone Johnson and the Whitefield Academy Wolf Pack to hand Turner County their very first loss of 2009 and claim the school's second class A boys' State Championship. Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Whitefield Academy on their State championship as well as all of the hard work that got them there.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I'm a very proud supporter of H.R. 577, the Vision Care for Kids Act of 2009. I want to commend Representative Green from Texas and Representative Sullivan from Oklahoma for bringing forward this bill. The reason why I'm here, Mr. Speaker, speaking on this issue as a physician Member of the House, is because it's very personal to me. My granddaughters, my oldest grandchildren, are now 11 years old. They are identical twin girls, Ali and Hannah Manning. And, Mr. Speaker, they were born prematurely. In fact, they were born immaturely, so premature at 26 weeks, that each of them weighed 1 pound, 12 ounces. And I thank God, Mr. Speaker, for the blessing, the double miracles of life and health. And really, they've done fine, except they had problems with vision. And that's because these young, premature, immature infants, need, Mr. Speaker, to receive so much oxygen therapy in their first weeks of life that it can damage the retina, and, in fact, that's what happened with our twin granddaughters. And they had to have multiple surgeries, laser surgeries. In fact, little Ali learned how to put a contact lens in her eye when she was only 5 years old. She could put it in and take it out. And again, we are so blessed. Their parents are blessed. My daughter and son-in-law, and the grandparents, the Mannings, and we Gingreys are so thankful. But we think every day about other children who cannot afford the care, maybe cannot afford to have vision screening. And if they do, Mr. Speaker, and if they're found to have limited vision, Mr. Sullivan talked about all the difficulties in school, both emotionally and physically and educationally that they have. If they can't afford then to have something done about their visual problem, what a shame that is. So, for us to have a bill, a program where Federal grants are given through the CDC, working with the States to make sure that each and every child, not just those privileged few that happen to have good coverage, could get the care that they need so they could become good, strong students and healthy and happy adults. So this is a wonderful program. Again, I commend the committee, Energy and Commerce Committee. I commend Mr. Green, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Deal. I recommend that all my colleagues, of course, support H.R. 577.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding. As she was pointing out, next week, the budget--the House version of our budget for fiscal year 2010--will be on this floor, and I think there is the full intention for that budget to be voted on and passed this coming week. Those of us who do not sit on the Budget Committee are not sure of all of the fine details in that budget, but we do know what our President has proffered to the Congress and to the American people as to what he would like to see as the Office of Management and Budget develops this $3.6 trillion budget. I think this is the highest amount of spending that we have had in this country since we originated our country way back in 1776 and 1779. The bottom line in regard to it is really simple as we look at it, as we, the loyal minority--the Republican party--look at that budget. There is no question but that it does three things: It spends enormously; it taxes painfully, and it borrows dangerously. Said another way, President Obama's budget spends too much; it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. We feel that that is wrong. As I talk today with my colleague Virginia Foxx, I think it is important that people understand that there is a better way. According to Republican philosophy, it has always been our feeling-- and I think this is a major difference between the Republicans and the Democrats--that we think ``less government.'' We think people have an opportunity to hold onto more of their hard-earned dollars and to pay less taxes to the Federal Government and to limit spending. That is the best recipe to get us out of this economic ditch that we are in. You have heard, and I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle many times say, ``The first rule of a ditch is that, when you're in one, you need to stop digging.'' Well, without question, this budget that the President has submitted to us is just digging a deeper and deeper hole in regard to the amount of debt--well, deficit spending, red ink--from year to year. In the aggregate, of course, you accumulate more and more debt, and you have to pay interest on that debt. It is just something that we, in our lifetimes, will never pay back. Our grandchildren will never pay it back, but our great grandchildren-- maybe they will pay it back, but what a burden, what a legacy to leave to the next generations. So I thank the gentlewoman. I am really happy to be sharing the time with her and with my other colleagues. I will yield back to Ms. Foxx, and we will continue to discuss some of the finer points of this budget that we are going to be voting on next week.

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

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me because I had some interesting statistics that follow right in with what Representative Thompson was talking about. And in regard to those small businesses in his district, I think he described his district is very much like mine in northwest Georgia. But just before we started this hour with Ms. Foxx controlling the time on discussing this budget, I had met with a good friend from the American Chemistry Council, and we sat down. He talked to me about this budget, this $3.6 trillion budget that borrows too much, spends too much, it taxes too much. And he said, Phil, let me just tell you what this does to jobs that are--business are part of the American Chemistry Council membership. But in your district, the 11th of Georgia, we're talking about 1,500 direct jobs and 95,000 indirect employees of the chemical industry in the 11th District. And he was talking about the same thing Representative Thompson was talking about in regard to that energy tax, that hidden energy tax. And this business in chemicals and plastics, they are very energy dependent. And then on top of all of that, this cap-and-tax where the President is trying to get $600 billion to spend on education and a single-payer health care system and green energy, it's really hurting these small businesses that depend on electricity. And there is a Superfund tax of $2.8 billion over 2 years. They do a lot of things with accounting that hurts small businesses. But I just wanted to--because it's so important. It goes along right with what is going on in western Pennsylvania. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, and I will yield back to him.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Once again, Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina, my good friend, Virginia Foxx, and thank her for bringing this information to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle because here it is, late Thursday afternoon, but we will be right back here on Monday and probably be in session next week until maybe even Friday or Saturday--I think it's possible we'll be here until Saturday--to try to pass this House version of the budget. I'm very hopeful that there will be some significant cuts, as Mr. Spratt, the chairman of the Budget Committee, brings that budget to the floor for a vote, and I hope there will be an opportunity for a Republican alternative. Certainly, we have a very good Republican alternative. I think there was a press conference on that today led by John Boehner and Paul Ryan the ranking member on the Budget Committee. We need to make sure that all people are represented in this people's House, and, hopefully, we will have a good debate next week and come up with a budget that's more reasonable than what the President has sent over here that was drawn up by his economic advisers, Christina Roemer and Larry Summers and, of course, Peter Orszag, the OMB, Office of Management and Budget, director. Our Congressional Budget Office, bipartisan to the core, said that his predictions of the amount of deficit were $2.3 trillion short. And before I yield back to Ms. Foxx, I want to just talk about some of the things in that budget that almost are incredulous. You know, Madam Speaker, this weekend I guess starting what, tonight, we go right back to pick up, as we go home--and I'm sure lots of folks across the country will be enjoying March Madness as the Sweet Sixteen gets down to the Final Four late Sunday afternoon. So this March Madness is wonderful for sports fans, and I know that President Obama is a big sports fan, in fact a big basketball fan; but I have had people in my district say there is no place in Washington for March Madness, but that's exactly what we're looking at in regard to this budget. I mean, it's unbelievable. Listen to this, Madam Speaker, in regard to increasing taxes during a recession, preposterous. Total tax increases during this recession over the next 10 years, $1.4 trillion; taxes on small businesses--which by the way we all know, nobody disputes the fact that they create about 75, 80 percent of the jobs in this country--this cap-and-tax, or cap- and-trade as President Obama calls it, this is a hidden tax of $646 billion on every man, woman, and child in this country. It causes the energy costs, electricity, natural gas, it just goes up, and it's a hidden tax. But every month, the middle class, the small working people, the small businesses are paying that tax so that we can take that money, put it in a reserve fund and pay for national, government-run health care, which I quite honestly think that the people of this country spoke loud and clear, Madam Speaker, back in 1993-94 when they totally rejected HillaryCare. So, you know, we do need to reform health care, and we need to have our market-driven system improved. And we're all for that on this side of the aisle and reduce the number of uninsured, and we can do that without giving a blank check to the Federal Government. But I could go on about some of these taxes, but I know Representative Foxx, who's leading the hour, has a number of things that she wants to talk about in the final 15 minutes or so. So I just want to thank the gentlelady for letting me join her, and I look forward to seeing her back next week as we try to bring some sense into the budget process.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my good friend John Carter for yielding time. I know I came in kind of late in the discussion, but I had a couple of things that I wanted to offer as suggestions. As we look at the budget and what President Obama and the Democratic majority want to do in regard to spending, it's based on some projections. I was watching television this weekend and I think the chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, was saying over and over how confident she was that this budget and this plan of stimulating and restoring the vigor in the economy would work and that the President would be able to afford to cut taxes, let the Bush tax cuts expire, and that the GDP would grow and be robust. Her projections that I recall were 4 percent GDP growth for a number of consecutive quarters. Of course, at this high unemployment rate that we're facing right now, my colleagues, it would come back down to the 6 percent range. Well, here's a suggestion. Why don't we put some triggers on this budget and say that you can't let those tax cuts expire until you've had two or three consecutive 4 percent or more growth in the GDP and until the unemployment rate comes back down to 6 percent. If you're that confident in your program, put those triggers in there. If my colleague will continue to yield, I've got one other suggestion, and that's based on this new program that we heard from Secretary Geithner and the Federal Reserve in regard to buying those toxic assets or troubled assets. They want the government to go--we, the taxpayers, Mr. Speaker--to go into partnership with the private sector. But who they mean by the private sector is these Wall Street Fat Cats--maybe some of them who got us in trouble in the first place. They've got cash on the sidelines. So they go into this partnership with the Federal Government but they get the best end of the deal and we, the taxpayer--my colleagues may have already gone over this, Mr. Speaker--but it's like the private sector has everything to gain, very little to lose, and the public sector--we, the taxpayer--has very little to gain and quite a lot to potentially lose. Here's what I would suggest. If it's so good a program, why don't we just simply do this: To every person in this country who has an IRA or 401(k), maybe they're retired, to be able then for a one-time deal to put up to 10,000 extra dollars in their IRA and put that into a government fund and let them have the opportunity to invest in these troubled assets. Let the public invest and not just give this sweetheart deal to all these Wall Street Fat Cats and we, the taxpayer, who don't want to be involved in that, we would not be on the hook at all. Honestly, I think a lot of people who have sat here and watched over the last year and a half, particularly the last 6 months, Mr. Speaker, their IRA value, their 401(k)s drop by 40 percent, the value of their home drop by 40 percent, this would give them an opportunity--praise God, hopefully--to recoup some of their money. I just wanted to make those suggestions. It was brought to me by one of my constituents and a good friend in my district.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman would yield for just 15 more seconds. I want to pay attribution to my colleague, a financial wizard, really, and a good friend, Tom Garr from Marietta, Georgia in the 11th Congressional District. Because it is, Mr. Speaker, our constituents a lot of times that bring us these great ideas. And we think we know everything up here in the halls of Congress, and sometimes we don't, or a lot of times we don't and it gets to be bizarro world, I call it. Even though the President is a great basketball fan, there is no place in this Congress or over down there on Pennsylvania Avenue for March Madness. It seems like that is what we have had here for the last couple or 3 weeks, and we need to get over that and move on. And I yield back to my friend.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was recently privileged to become one of the co-chairs of the House Taiwan Caucus, and I look forward to working to strengthen our country's relationship with Taiwan through the efforts of the Caucus. Just this week, I was also pleased to have met Ambassador Yuan and Director General Tseng down at the Georgia Capitol where the Ambassador was being honored by the Georgia General Assembly. I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 55, which commemorates the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. As stated in this resolution, the Taiwan Relations Act has served as the cornerstone of America's relationship with Taiwan since its enactment in 1979. This resolution recognizes ``Taiwan's evolution into a free society and a full-fledged, multi-party democracy.'' As the 9th largest trading partner of the United States in 2007, Taiwan has demonstrated its commitment to work with the United States and to collaborate on a range of issues--especially in regards to combating global terrorism. Mr. Speaker, Taiwan has also made clear its commitment to give back to the global community through humanitarian relief an other contributions to help stabilize global financial markets. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of this milestone anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in reaffirming our support for Taiwan's democratic institutions and commitment to our strong friendship with Taiwan.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

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

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, the good doctor. And, you know, again, stressing this theme of going forward, the shortage of manpower, it has a lot to do with physician satisfaction in their chosen profession. And I think that is basically what we want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that everybody, all of our colleagues understand on both sides of the aisle, that as Dr. Fleming was saying, if you have access to an affordable health insurance policy, as we all hope and pray for those 47 million, if it's a system that is run by the government and we crowd out the private market completely--and that is one of my big fears and I think that of my colleagues--then these young men and women that normally would--our best and brightest who would normally want to go to medical school and maybe become a family practitioner and provide this care, they are not going to do it. They are going to choose another profession. They are going to maybe become lawyers, but not doctors. And I think that is a big concern. And I don't think anybody knows more about this than the next person that I will yield to, Dr. Phil Roe, a fellow OB-GYN physician, who has provided women's care and delivered lots of babies in the Tri-City area of Tennessee--Kingsport, Bristol, Johnson City--and he knows of what he speaks. And I think he's going to talk to us a little bit about what probably everybody in this Chamber is aware of, and that is something called TIN care in Tennessee, and I am happy to yield to my colleague, a freshman representative doing a wonderful job, Dr. Phil Roe.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee and the words of the wisdom that he brought us to. Before I yield to my colleague from Georgia, I want to just make a few comments, Mr. Speaker, about some of the statistics in regard to physician workforce shortage. Any my State, my home State of Georgia, it's ranked 40th in the Nation with respect to active physicians per 100,000 people. In Georgia, there are 204 per 100,000. National average is 250. Georgia also has the dubious ranking of 44th in the Nation with respect to active primary care physicians. You just heard that from Dr. Fleming, and you will hear it in just a minute from Dr. Paul Broun, a family practitioner in Georgia. Seventy-three primary care physicians per 100,000 in Georgia; the national average, 88.1. Eighty-nine percent of job seekers graduating from Georgia medical residency programs received and accepted job offers in 2004 but only 54 percent of them stayed in my great State of Georgia. So just kind of bringing home some of the statistics from where we live and represent. At this time, I'm proud to yield to Dr. Paul Broun, the gentleman who represents my hometown of Augusta, Georgia, and Athens, Georgia, the home of the University of Georgia, the great bulldog nation and many, many wonderful counties in between. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank my colleague, Dr. Broun, for joining with us in this hour, talking about the issue of strengthening the doctor-patient relationship and not destroying it. And as Dr. Broun pointed out in some of his statistics, those shortages that he was talking about in the State of Georgia--and this is applicable to 49 other States as well--we're talking about under the current system. But once we cover the 47 million uninsured, and these numbers just get that much more difficult, and actually the shortage increases by 4 percent, and these statistics are frightening. And before I introduce the next speaker, my colleague from Texas, my fellow OB/GYN colleague, I wanted my colleagues to see this next slide. And part of the reason of this physician shortage--and as I say, it will only get worse in the future--is declining reimbursement ranked as the number one impediment to the delivery of patient care. Sixty-five percent of physicians surveyed said that Medicaid pays less than the cost of providing that care, and 35 percent of the physicians surveyed said Medicare pays less than cost of providing that care. Nobody in this House of Representatives has worked harder than my classmate, the good OB/GYN doctor from Plano, Dallas-Fort Worth. He has worked so hard to try to provide a reimbursement based on a reasonable formula and not this current sustainable growth rate. Nobody can really understand how that's ever figured, but doctors know that every year it's figured in a cut in their reimbursement, and that indeed, Mr. Speaker, is not sustainable. And with that, I yield to my colleague from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Dr. Price, thank you so much. Mr. Speaker, I realize that we are running very close to that witching hour. Maybe I saved the best until last. He probably thinks that I'm shorting him on time because his LSU Tigers whipped up pretty badly on my Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets in the Bowl game. That's is not the case at all. I'm proud to yield to the internist and gastroenterologist from Baton Rouge, Dr. Patrick.