Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentlelady will yield to me just for a second, I will yield right back to her. Even the Hispanic language Web site is not available to these people that need to get that vital information. The Web site for the Hispanic is down.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina and the very fine points that she makes in regard to this law. And the problems that the American people are facing here--as I say, 3\1/2\ years after enactment of the law--Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine it taking me 3\1/2\ years to get something right and not have enough time. But just listen to this: it does not instill confidence that the administration was scheduled to certify the security of the health IT system--information technology--people's health information--just hours before millions of Americans are expected to upload their personal information--health care information, financial information. That is a pretty scary prospect, my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to think just hours ahead of time. What is more important than one's personal health care information? Not even their financial information. Because we are talking about life and death issues here, Mr. Speaker. It has given waivers and delays to politically favored friends, but left the rest of America to bear the full weight of the law. That is what we were talking about in this poster that I want my colleagues, once again, to focus on in regard to ``fairness for all''--``fairness for all.'' We are not getting it. To quell the public's growing discontent, the President is actually now marketing efforts to protect families from this looming train wreck as ``crazy.'' The American people face costly and onerous mandates, small businesses struggle to keep up with the rising costs, doctors--my colleagues, my former colleagues in Georgia where I practiced for 26 years obstetrics and gynecology in Cobb County, Marietta, Georgia, the heart of the Eleventh Congressional District--doctors frustrated with the challenges of a government-run health care system, and the security of America's health and financial information is unknown. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the doctors know, they know this is just a first salvo. They understand that the intent was to have a single- payer system, not unlike the UK or Canada or Australia. That is what the leading Democrats--the Democrats that have been in this body for 20, 30, 40, and in some cases 50 years--have been trying to literally force-feed to the American people who absolutely don't want it. Add October 1 to the list of dates on which the Obama administration pretends an unworkable health care scheme is precisely what the American people were promised--an admission not yet made, but inevitable nonetheless. Mark down October 1, 2013, as a day in infamy, as a day in infamy. This behavior, Mr. Speaker, is not what Americans deserve, and it is a reminder that we need new leadership. We need new leadership in the White House and in the Senate. We need a new Senate majority leader. After 2014, I think we are going to have one. House Republicans will continue working day and night to return the United States Government to business as usual--to business as usual. I oppose a government shutdown. As I said at the outset of the hour, Mr. Speaker--as I conclude our time--I oppose a government shutdown, and I am fighting, yes, to repeal ObamaCare, as I have for the last 4 years. In the meantime--in the meantime--I do agree with President Obama that implementation of this flawed and disastrous health care law must be delayed, it must be delayed. However, Mr. Speaker, the President has only delayed ObamaCare for his political friends--a few privileged Americans and big corporations. That is where we disagree. If we cannot repeal the law, I believe that it must be delayed for all Americans. We have spent the last 50 minutes, Mr. Speaker, talking about that, explaining to our colleagues in this Chamber and to the American people that this law is not and will never be ready for prime time. It was flawed from the very beginning. Has it brought down the cost of health care? Is there anything in the law about medical liability reform that the President promised? Has it fulfilled the pledge from the President of the United States that ``if you like your health insurance, you can keep it, nothing has to change''? Has it fulfilled the mandate that it has strengthened Medicare? How, Mr. Speaker, can a law strengthen Medicare when $750 billion was taken out of that program for our precious seniors--our parents and our grandparents--that are struggling, it is struggling. Statistics show that if we don't make some changes by as early as 2016 that claims will not be honored. When that happens and when we continue to cut reimbursement to our providers, there will be no primary care doctors to take care of our most precious seniors. So these are the things that from the very beginning you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, you are taking money out of one entitlement program to create a whole new entitlement program--I guess you could call it, Mr. Speaker: Medicare for all from cradle to grave. But really what it is is national health insurance. We are talking about health care in this country is one-sixth of our economy. Do we want the Federal Government--think about it, ladies and gentlemen of the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle, think about it--do you want the Federal Government, that entity that runs Amtrak, that entity that is responsible for the U.S. Postal Service, do you want that entity to run one-sixth of the economy, and that one-sixth dealing with life and death and the health of a Nation? No, no, Mr. Speaker. We don't want that; the American people don't want that, just voted loud and clear. It just astounds me that this Democratic majority in the Senate and this President won't even agree to basic fairness issues, like I have here on this poster, won't even agree to go to conference with the conferees that our great Speaker John Boehner has appointed to just sit down and talk. The President goes all over the world talking to people that I wouldn't talk to. In a New York minute I wouldn't talk to them; I wouldn't trust them. But we can trust each other. The men and women in this House on both sides of the aisle, the men and women in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, the leadership, these are honorable people. And to just stand in the way of sitting down and having a conversation and saying, look, you disagreed with our ``fairness for all'' issue; you disagreed with our ``no special treatment.'' Please let's talk. That is what Speaker Boehner is saying to Leader Reid. I think, Mr. Speaker, I think if we do that, I think if we do that, we can solve this problem and move forward with the financial security of this Nation. We are at a physical cliff. We owe $17 trillion. On October 17, the Treasury says we are going to have to borrow another God knows how much. Is it $1 trillion, is it $2 trillion, is it $3 trillion? I don't know. But we can't kick the can down the road anymore. This can won't even move, it is so crunched up. It is time for us to come together, as the Speaker says, and let's talk. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Charles William ``Bill'' Maloney and thank him for his service to country and community. On September 6, with his loved ones at his side, Bill passed away peacefully at the age of 91. A native of Kansas, Bill was surrounded by aviation from an early age. This would eventually influence his life long career in aviation. He entered the Army Air Corps during World War Two and flew C47 aircraft missions in the Pacific theater. After the war, he returned to the mainland and earned his undergraduate degree from Washburn University and then moved to Marietta, Georgia in 1952. There, he began a 36-year long career with Lockheed Martin. He would later graduate from Atlanta's John Marshall Law School in 1957. Bill was a role model and community leader. He took pride in civic service and served on--and chaired--the Kennestone Hospital Board of Authority, the Marietta City Zoning Board, and the Marietta School Board. Furthermore, he was an active parishioner at St. Joseph's Catholic Church, where he and his wife, Dorothy, actively volunteered regularly. His colleagues and friends will always remember Bill as someone who took pride in his profession, cared deeply about his community, loved his family, and enjoyed golfing with his friends. Mr. Speaker, I extend my deepest condolences to Bill's children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren for their loss. It saddens me to know that the world is missing an honorable and dedicated man, but I am humbled to know that he is now in a better place.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 185th anniversary of the Monk farm's founding in Worth County, Georgia. As one of the Georgia Centennial farm recipients, this farm is one of Georgia's historic landmarks and a beloved and cherished part of our past. In 1828, a newly married William and Alcy Monk built a home on a hill in what was to become southern Worth County. William would eventually come to purchase plots of land totaling almost 2000 acres, where he would cultivate sugar cane, tobacco, and cotton. The beginnings of the Monk farm are in many ways, reminiscent of Georgia--and America's-- agricultural heritage. Beginning in the early 1900's, it saw recent Mercer Law School graduate and later State Court Judge Chesley Monk practice law farm the property for over 50 consecutive years. It saw naval officer Ridley Monk return home to operate the farm after fighting World War Two in the Pacific. And it has even seen--and was home to--the very first farming tractor in Worth County. But the Monk farm is not only a story of the past; it also embodies the story of Georgia's growth. Despite its success, however, it has remained in the Monk family for six generations, and has filled the farm with countless memories. Though the Monk family's dreams and careers have taken them near and far away, the farm and the family's devotion to it remain. Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I congratulate the Monk family on their farm's long-standing place in Georgia's--and America's--rich historic past. Here's to their place in the next 185 years of American history.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate 19 schools in Georgia's 11th District for being awarded medals in the SHAPE Honor Roll program. As a former member of the Marietta school board, it is a great source of pride to see students back home working hard to create healthy habits that will last them a lifetime. Under the leadership of Governor Deal last year, the SHAPE program began as a statewide initiative in Georgia to help combat childhood obesity and create lifelong healthy habits through physical activity, nutrition, and wellness. Since then, a dedicated network of partners, agencies, and athletic teams have joined forces in their commitment to helping Georgia's youth achieve a greater level of fitness and commend public schools that help them do so. This year's esteemed award-winners include public institutions from the elementary to high school level across the state of Georgia. Students, parents, administration officials, and instructors have gone above and beyond their duties in ensuring that their youth understand the mental and physical benefits of a healthy lifestyle, and should look upon this accomplishment with great enthusiasm. Mr. Speaker, this distinguished group of awarded educational communities has established a benchmark of excellence which schools across the nation should aspire to. On behalf of Georgia's 11th Congressional District, I congratulate these educational communities on this achievement, and extend my deepest thanks for their dedication to the youth of our community.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 80th birthday of Dr. Paul Payne, and thank him for his medical service to the community of Marietta, Georgia. Dr. Payne has led a most storied and purposeful life. In 1933, Dr. Payne was born in New York, before moving to China at the age of two and starting school in Korea. But with threats of war, he boarded the last boat back to America before China entered World War Two in 1941. He settled in Atlanta, where he would finish high school at age 16, and finished his undergraduate degree at Maryville College in Tennessee in only three years before attending the Medical College of Georgia. After becoming an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Payne helped to found Marietta Orthopedics in 1964, which was renamed Pinnacle in 1997. Throughout his career, he has worked tirelessly and passionately to help the sick get back to full health. With a truly inspiring attitude, he maintains that the most gratifying part of his job is to fix people and watch them get well. Notably, he loves working with children, and said that ``when you love the work you do, then it is not considered work.'' Among his many accomplishments, Dr. Payne performed the first total hip replacement in Cobb County, was named to the Wellstar Kennestone Hospital Board of Directors in 1984--where he remains today, received the NRCC Georgia Physician of the Year award in 2006, and received the 2007 Congressional Order of Merit. But aside from his impressive professional life, he has remained one of the finest citizens and fathers that I know, and is a great community role-model. He has instilled great values in his four wonderful children, and has remained an active Rotary Club member for several years. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 11th District of Georgia, I would like to extend a very happy birthday to Dr. Payne, recognize him for his exceptional work in the medical field, and thank him for being a great role-model for others in the community.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013. The IRS was granted 46 new powers in Obamacare including the collection of 21 new taxes, the distribution of 13 new subsidies, 6 new information collection responsibilities, and an additional 6 new powers to enforce compliance. As the Treasury Inspector General said earlier this year, ``It is unprecedented in recent history, the amount of responsibility the IRS is being given in an area that most people don't think of as an IRS function.'' Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today will seek to rectify this situation and force this Congress to think of better options to reform our health system. Obamacare has given the American people the largest tax increase in our country's history and will take over 80 million hours annually to follow the law. This bill will get the IRS out of health care, thereby allow businesses to focus on creating jobs and succeeding as opposed to trying to comply with overreaching regulatory enforcement by the federal government, and stop the implementation of the misguided health care bill. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2009.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise today as a proud original cosponsor of H.R. 367, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny--or REINS--Act. Far too much authority has been delegated to federal agencies, leading to a lack of accountability and massive Executive overreach through regulation. According to current procedure, major rules promulgated by agencies take effect unless Congress passes and the President signs a joint resolution disapproving them under the Congressional Review Act. The Obama Administration has abused this process time and time again to bypass the legislative branch to regulate what it cannot legislate, with $50 billion in new rules proposed this year alone and the overall cost of the current regulatory burden coming in at $1.8 trillion. At a time when nearly 12 million Americans are searching for work, the Obama Administration continues to burden the economy with cumbersome, bureaucratic regulations that harm small businesses and hamper economic growth. To make matters worse, this Administration has made a habit out of ignoring the legal obligation to transparency in the regulatory process. The constant flow of regulations has led to uncertainty and a lack of oversight, and Americans deserve a government that is truly accountable to the people. Mr. Chair, H.R. 367 would restore Congressional accountability by requiring Congress and the President to approve major rules--those with an impact on the economy of more than $100 million--before they can be enforced, thereby allowing a means to stem the flow of unnecessary, complex, and ineffective regulations. Congress has the right and responsibility to exercise rigorous oversight over the rulemaking process to ensure that we reduce needless and excessive regulatory burdens, protect current jobs, and promote future growth. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 367.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 2579, the Government Employee Accountability Act, offered by my good friend Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania. I applaud this commonsense legislation that was initially developed in response to a senior GSA employee orchestrating the infamous GSA conference in Las Vegas that cost taxpayers $800,000. He was placed on administrative leave with pay. Under current law, this is not only permitted, but there is little other recourse. There is no current mechanism for agencies to take away the pay of Senior Executive Service (SES) employees under investigative review for misconduct. Rather, employees can be placed on administrative leave or suspension, both with the opportunity for pay. Mr. Speaker, the necessity of the legislation before us today is again highlighted by the recent scandals plaguing the IRS and its targeting of conservative groups. Despite the continued emergence of compelling facts detailing Ms. Lerner's involvement with discriminatory targeting and her refusal to cooperate with Congressional investigations, Ms. Lerner continues to draw a $180,000 salary from the federal government. When she refused to resign, she was placed on administrative leave, so rather than being punished for targeting Americans based on their political beliefs, she is taking a well-paid vacation on the taxpayer dime. H.R. 2579 would authorize all federal agencies to place an employee on investigative leave without pay if the employees conduct was serious or flagrant. I believe that this legislation is critical in regaining the trust of Americans. Paid leave is a slap on the wrist, and simply does not sufficiently restore the public's trust that the federal government will hold those responsible for serious misconduct accountable. Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve real answers and solutions to ensure that high-ranking federal employees are reprimanded and held responsible for unacceptable behavior. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2579.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 850--the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013. As a cosponsor of this important legislation, I would like to commend the bipartisan leadership of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Royce of California and Ranking Member Engel of New York on this issue. Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that our strongest ally in the Middle East is the State of Israel. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us to provide them with our unwavering support. In order to uphold this commitment, we must stop Iran's nuclear proliferation efforts. That is why I am pleased that from the outset of this legislation, the statement of policy is absolutely clear when it states, ``It shall be the policy of the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.'' Congress took an important step during 2012 to implement economic sanctions on Iran through the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012. This important legislation punishes individuals who knowingly sell more than 1,000,000 barrels of refined product, or individuals that sell, lease, or provide Iran with goods, services, technology, or information. However, despite this effort, Iran's nuclear program has continued to grow. It was reported today that Iran has an additional 5,000 new centrifuges are ready to start operation to complement the existing 12,000 already in place. This comes on the heels of the International Atomic Energy Agency's statement in June that Tehran was violating international regulations by increasing the number of centrifuges. This continued growth in Iran's nuclear proliferation is simply unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, while we took a critical first step in the 112th Congress, it is abundantly clear that further action is needed to curtail Iran's nuclear program. H.R. 850 today will only expand sanctions targeting Iran's human rights violations, and--for the first time--allow the President of the United States to impose sanctions on any entity that maintains significant commercial ties to Iran. H.R. 850 hits Iran where it hurts the most. By strengthening existing sanctions on 1,000,000 barrels of crude per day, this bill essentially takes money away from the Iranian regime that it would potentially use on the nuclear program. Once again, this legislation will show our strong support of Israel and its ability to remain a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 850.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Flores/Gingrey/Conaway/Hensarling Amendment to H.R. 2397 that will prevent funds in this legislation from being used to carry out Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Section 526 prohibits all federal agencies from contracting for alternative fuels that emit higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions than ``conventional petroleum sources.'' This means that if a federal agency--particularly the Department of Defense--has the ability to utilize an alternative fuel that even has one scintilla more of carbon emissions than conventional fuels, it cannot be used. As a result, Section 526 severely stifles innovation from DoD to improve clean carbon capture technologies for alternative fuels, thereby increasing our dependence on foreign oil, and will only further increase fuel costs. Mr. Chair, I support a full repeal of Section 526 because the cost of refined product for DoD has increased by over 500 percent in the last ten years when volume only increased by 30 percent. This amendment takes a very important step towards achieving this goal by prohibiting funding to carry out Section 526 for the upcoming fiscal year in the DoD. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am joined this evening with my colleagues in the House GOP Doctors Caucus, and other Republican Members, to talk about this most, most important subject, and that is this recent delay of the employer mandate. The Obama administration's announcement that it will delay implementation of the employer mandate due to the enormous regulatory burden on businesses, Mr. Speaker, is proof positive that the Affordable Care Act is a job killer. The administration's excuse for the delay was to simplify reporting requirements for small businesses. But employers haven't been against the mandate solely due to its burdensome reporting requirements. While it's estimated that ObamaCare will require American job creators, families, and health care providers to spend more than 127 million hours a year on complying with the law, a far greater concern to business owners is the impact the mandate will have on job creation. The cost of the health insurance and of ObamaCare's fines will drive up the costs of labor and will continue to be a drag on this economy. This is further evidence that the administration does not get how the law will impact the economy. The U.S. Chamber reported that 72 percent of small business executives would have a harder time hiring because of ObamaCare. The employer mandate has been cited by business owners repeatedly as a major obstacle to expansion. They simply cannot afford it. At a recent small business roundtable, one Georgia business owner said to me, I want to provide health care insurance for my employees. ObamaCare has forced me to choose between that and hiring new people. For instance, one common deterrent to growth that is often cited by small businesses is the 50 employee threshold, at which point a business must provide insurance to its employees once the 50th full- time employee is hired. This misguided provision has repeatedly forced different hiring practices by these companies. I heard that Heatco, a company which specializes in the design and manufacture of world-class heating solutions, which is located in my district in Bartow County, Georgia, had looked into expanding. The thing is that it currently has--you guessed it, Mr. Speaker--49 employees, and due to the added ObamaCare cost, to expand by adding an additional employee, it will cost more than automating some of their processes. The administration cannot say with a straight face that businesses are more concerned with reporting requirements rather than with the overbearing costs that ObamaCare will add to their bottom lines. President Obama's announcement doesn't reduce the harmful effects that the mandate will have on employers as we move forward. It could, however, provide cover. Let me repeat that: it could, however, provide cover for Democrats during an election year. This political calculation protects them from voter backlash and from the reality that ObamaCare-- their law--is to blame for an economy that is literally hemorrhaging jobs. This is yet another example of the Obama administration's replacing the rule of law with partisan, raw politics. This unilateral decision is an abuse of executive power; and in my opinion, it is a clear demonstration that President Obama will disregard for political gain the laws he has signed. In 2010, Democrats in Congress determined that the enforcement of the egregious employer mandate would begin on January 1, 2014. As bad as the law may be, the administration does not have the power to rewrite the law. That responsibility belongs--where?--right here in Congress. Just look at your Constitution, which I keep in my pocket. It's somewhere deep inside my pocket, but I guarantee you that it's in here, because I put it in here every single day. Legalities aside, postponing the mandate for 1 year is not enough. It simply delays the inevitable. When it's eventually enacted, Mr. Speaker, hours will still be cut, and pay will still be reduced. Businesses hovering just under the 50 employee threshold will still have to weigh the costs of expansion; and because of the requirement, many will be unable to grow. It is just further proof that the administration does not understand how business works. The lack of response from this administration is also increasingly frustrating. House Republicans have held numerous hearings, asking for more information as to how this decision was reached. We have sent letters to the Secretary of the Treasury, and we have sent letters to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We have asked witnesses in order for us to gain a better insight into this ruling, but have continuously been rebuffed, in other words, no response to our requests. It's offensive to the American people that the administration cannot offer clear guidance on a central piece of its ObamaCare fiasco. This delay will also affect the verification of individuals in this insurance exchange. It's amazing that the administration is suggesting that we will rely on the honor system to determine Federal payments. This is truly outrageous. According to the law, you aren't eligible for ObamaCare subsidies if your employer has offered you what the government considers to be affordable coverage. This is spelled out clearly in the law. With the delay of the employer mandate, however, the government won't be able to verify whether the individual has been offered coverage, and this will open the door--wide open--for enormous fraud and abuse, and the costs will skyrocket. We've seen the same thing in other entitlement programs that rely on this so-called honor system. It's clear that what we are seeing is a tactic of ``subsidize first, ask questions later.'' Remember the old phrase ``pay and chase'' on Medicare claims? It is the administration's goal to enroll as many people in the ObamaCare exchanges as they can and as soon as they can, i.e., in this year of delay, so that we will never be able to repeal this bill. The Federal takeover of one-sixth of the economy raises taxes on small business owners and on middle class families. It guts Medicare, seniors--it guts Medicare--and it will irreparably harm the doctor-patient relationship. Instead, we need State-based reforms that will lower costs, give patients more control of their own health insurance policies, increase access, and ensure a higher standard of care. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris, who was an anesthesiologist by profession before coming to Congress.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. Before I yield time to the gentleman from Kentucky, colleagues, I want you to look at this first poster because a lot of what the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Speaker, was talking about in regard to costs shows it pretty simply here. The change in the cost per employee, because of the health care law, if you have 49 employees, as we've talked about, there is no increase in the cost of health care because you don't have to provide the government-mandated expensive coverage. So there is no increase. That's why, of course, they keep the employee rate at 49 and don't hire those extra employees. If you're at 50, though, and you are under the mandate, the increase is $800 per employee; if you are at 75 employees, the increase is $1,200 per employee; 100 employees, a $1,400 increase; and 150, a $1,600 per year increase per employee. That's why so many of these small businesses are right there, my colleagues, at 49, with no increase because no job growth or employees that are hired at 29 hours a week. Try to support yourself, much less a family, on 29 hours a week. I now yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. Although he is not a member of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, I think that we might take a vote here on the House floor. The cochair of the House GOP Doctors Caucus is here with me, and I'm going to recognize him in just a second. So he and I are cochairs; so, Mr. Guthrie, we may indeed make you an honorary member. Thank you very much. We appreciate your input. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the issue is not just about the doctor-patient relationship. The reason we're giving this presentation tonight and the leadership has asked us to talk about this issue, the members of the House GOP Doctors Caucus--and it includes medical doctors, I think about 16 of us. It includes dentists. It includes a clinical psychologist. It includes a hospital administrator--formerly, before becoming a Members of Congress--advanced practice nurses, bachelor of science nurses, people in the health care space that know of what they speak. And in that regard, I can't think of anybody, Mr. Speaker, who knows this issue better than my cochairman of the House GOP Doctors Caucus and fellow OB/GYN physician, Dr. Phil Roe from Tennessee.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time just for a second, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is bringing up a subject that is so important that our colleagues understand on both sides of the aisle, this IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board that Dr. Roe is talking about, it's 15 bureaucrats. Well, none of them have been appointed yet. Not one. Nada. And the law says that if the Secretary doesn't appoint, or these 15 are not appointed--and, yes, they are going to make about $175,000 a year--then she, and it's a ``she'' right now, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or whomever in the future, they don't have to have that board; one individual bureaucrat can make these cuts, these, really, rationing cuts is what it is. I yield back to my colleague.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Reclaiming my time just for a second, Sunday it was, on the Sunday morning ``Meet the Press,'' and that's what this next poster shows, yesterday, on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Democrat majority leader from Nevada, proclaimed that: ObamaCare has been wonderful for America. Well, let's just take a look at some of the headlines from this past week on just how wonderful it has been. Investors Business Daily says: ObamaCare mandate delay, employers keep job cuts. For many workers, the 1-year delay in ObamaCare's employer mandate was too little too late. Reuters says analysis: ObamaCare struggles to meet make-or-break deadline. With time running out, United States officials are struggling to cope with the task of launching the new online health insurance exchanges at the heart of President Barack Obama's signature health reforms by an October 1 deadline. Time magazine: ObamaCare increases cost and complications. The Obama administration's recent announcement that the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate will kick in a year late could ripple beyond the brief extension, increasing costs and complicating implementation of other vital parts of the law. Think the exchanges as an example. And then CNN Money says this: Delay in the ObamaCare employer mandate has simply put off rules businesses had already started to adjust to. That's the reality here, Mr. Speaker. My colleague from Tennessee knows it. I think my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle know it, and that's why, in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that, hey, is it really the employers, the small business men and women that were knocking on the White House door saying, We can't meet these reporting requirements, please help us do something; or was it some of my Democratic friends, whether in this Chamber or the other body, saying, 2014 is going to be kind of a tough year for us having to defend this train wreck? I think that's what the Senator from Montana said. Of course, he's going to retire rather than face the music. I can't say that I blame him. That's what's going on here. People are not dumb. I think they can read between the lines. I hope my colleague can stay awhile longer. I'd like to yield to him at this point.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I've got one last poster that I wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues. It's a little complicated. I'll try to make it as simple as I can. Basically, let's start right here with the employer. Under that, in this diagram, fewer than 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalents, then no employer penalty for offering a health insurance benefit. But in the most egregious situation, the employer has 50 or more full-time employees, including full-time equivalents, and the employer decides not to offer coverage. If a tax credit is obtained by at least one of those full-time employees in an exchange, then the annual penalty to that employer is $2,000 for the year--not just for that one, but for every single employee that he or she employs. It could be hundreds; it could be thousands.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. They get a break for 30, yes. Again, we just have maybe a little bit of time left, and I wanted to point out some things to our colleagues. I want to call this ``ObamaCare Shot and Chaser.'' Bear with me a little bit because I think this is interesting and cute at the same time. ObamaCare has been a train wreck since its inception. March 23, 2010, almost 3\1/2\ years ago, the Democrats passed it to see what's in it. And now families, taxpayers, and job creators are paying one steep price. Between its skyrocketing cost, unsustainable and wasteful programs, and job-strangling policies, a majority of Americans disapprove of this law--and they disapprove of it today. On top of that, implementation of ObamaCare has become a full-fledged disaster, as we've pointed out this evening. Some of its biggest supporters agree with us--and not news media publications that are considered particularly conservative. As for the President, he just can't seem to make up his mind on the employer mandate. He was against it in 2009 before he was for it in 2010. After signing the mandate into law, the administration announced earlier this month it would delay the employer requirement for 1 year. When the House of Representatives acted last week to really make it constitutional--because he didn't have the right to do that--but when we voted to allow him to do that, the same White House issued a veto threat on the bill. The thing that he had done and that we made it legal for him to do, he's going to veto that. So the shot: We have heard concerns about the complexity of the employer mandate requirement and the need for more time to implement them effectively. We have listened to your feedback and we are taking action. The administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the Affordable Care Act mandatory employer mandate and insurer reporting requirements begin. The chaser. That was the bill that we passed, H.R. 2667. Employer mandate delay is unnecessary. These are the words of the administration: Enacting this legislation would undermine key elements of the health law. That was stated July 17 by the White House veto threat. President Obama's repeated flip-flops on the individual mandate are well- documented. He pledged support for it in 2007 on the campaign trail to a group of union workers. When his health care plan was released months later, the individual mandate was noticeably absent. He went on to attack his Presidential primary opponents--think HC--for supporting the requirement, only to change his mind once again shortly thereafter. I could go on and on. I think we've made our point here tonight, and maybe we can yield back a little time. I will yield to my colleague, and he can yield back to me for closing. Mr. Speaker, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we're here to get it right. I've always said this--and I truly believe it--the politics will take care of itself. The people will decide. We don't need term limits. They term-limit us. Let's quit worrying about the politics, and let's do the policy. Let's get the policy right. A 2,700-page bill crammed down the throats of the American people will never work. It never has worked. It never will work. And that's why we're here tonight, taking pains to explain and make sure that anybody within earshot understands that we're sincere about this. It's not partisan. We need to get rid of this law, and we need to replace it with something that truly will effect those changes that Dr. Roe was talking about in regard to the cost of health care and the accessibility. We didn't even talk about accessibility and about whether or not there will be any doctors there to see these patients. So I yield to my friend from Tennessee.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank all of the members of the House GOP Doctors Caucus who participated tonight. If I tried to add up the number of years of clinical experience in our group of about 21 members on the Republican side of the aisle in this caucus, it would probably be 600-plus years. So we really do know of what we speak. We don't have every answer, but we know of what we speak; and we want to get it right. That's what this is all about. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have in my hand a pocket Constitution, which says here in Article I, Section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. It doesn't say anything in there about the President. Mr. Speaker, if you've noticed a lot of times, the weaker one's argument, the louder the volume, and I'm hearing a lot of volume from the other side of the aisle, including from their leadership. They have a weak argument, Mr. Speaker--there is no question about it--in saying that the bill has already passed. If the bill has already passed, what right does the President have to change the law without coming back to the Congress? We are giving them the opportunity to do that. Of course, we are also giving the young people in this country the opportunity to get the same break that these large Fortune 500 companies may be getting in regard to delaying the employer mandate for 1 year. Let's do the same thing for these young people who are no longer 26. They're 26\1/2\; they're not living in the basement anymore; they have a job. Let's give them the same 12-month break that we're giving to employers. Pass this bill. It's a good bill. We have the authority to do it, not the President.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the promotion of Major Adam J. Kimmich, to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. This Thursday, July 11, 2013, it will be my great honor to preside over his promotion ceremony and celebrate his exceptional accomplishment of service and dedication to this great nation. Though he currently works as an Operations Officer at US Special Operations Command, Kimmich has served in many capacities throughout the world. In 1997, he began his career in the Army as an Infantry Officer at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii, and has since been promoted to positions including Rifle Platoon Leader, Assistant Battalion Operations Officer, Commander, Operations Officer in Special Operations Command, and Battalion Operations Officer in the Philippines, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Kimmich also served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom. His awards and decorations include the Combat Infantryman's Badge, Bronze Star, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, multiple Army Commendation Medals and Army Achievement Medals, as well as the Iraq Campaign Medal, GWOT Campaign and GWOT Expeditionary Medals, and 5 Overseas Service Ribbons. He has earned the Special Forces Tab, Ranger Tab, Parachutists Badge, Air Assault Badge, and Expert Infantryman's Badge. Adam's parents, John and Barbara Kimmich of Kennesaw, Georgia, should be proud to know that their guidance has led their son to stand for the principles this country cherishes most, and the freedom of its people. His path has not been easy, but Adam's valor and sense of duty have led him to overcome obstacles that most of us could never imagine. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 11th District of Georgia, I extend my deepest gratitude to Lieutenant Colonel Kimmich for devoting his life to upholding the Constitution of the United States and making the world a safer place. Again, I congratulate him on this well-deserved promotion.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 305 on suspending the Rules and passing H.R. 1341, the Financial Competitive Act of 2013, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1171, the FOR VETS Act. This straightforward piece of legislation simply amends current law to allow Veterans Service Organizations--VSOs-- access to federal surplus property. VSOs are valuable partners in providing for our veterans, and can provide critical services including transport to medical appointments and other support services. H.R. 1171 ensures that VSOs are eligible for federal surplus property that could help to carry out their mission. Our brave men and women in uniform put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms, and we must do everything in our power to demonstrate our gratitude for their dedication and sacrifice. Our veterans deserve support, and this bill takes a step to showing them that we recognize their contributions and would like to give back. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to help veterans by supporting H.R. 1171.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1864, which addresses sexual assault in our armed forces. This bill amends the Military Whistleblower Protection Act to strengthen protections for those reporting rape or sexual assault. Enacting this legislation is a critical step towards combating rape and sexual assault in the military for two reasons. It will immediately require an investigation into allegations of whistleblower retaliation in an attempt to encourage victims to come forward. It also seeks to help remove some of the fears and stigmas associated with reporting sexual assault. In the long term, it is part of a cultural change in how the military addresses sex crimes. Sexual assault will not be tolerated, perpetrators will be punished, and victims will not be ignored or harassed.