Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Well, if the gentleman will yield to me again and I appreciate it. He said it exactly right. It is the Pelosi proposal, the Democratic majority proposal, the Harry Reid proposal. But it's certainly not the Congressional proposal, because we Republicans, Mr. Speaker, are part of that mix. And as the gentleman from Missouri points out, we were never consulted. There was no essentially no markup, no regular order. And as Representative Akin says, the importance of getting it right-- you know, some people use the expression for goodness sake, don't just sit there, do something. Well, I happen to be a doctor too, an OB/GYN doctor, and I know a lot of times it's better to not just do something, sit there. The baby will come. But we're not recommending though that we do nothing, Mr. Speaker. We're just saying that when you've got a bill with 825, more in the Senate, billions of dollars in it, it needs to stimulate the economy for sure. And it needs to put people back to work for sure, not just maybe. And as the gentleman from Missouri said, we could make matters far worse than they were in the late 70s under President Jimmy Carter, and we could even get as bad as it was back in 1929, 30, 31, 32, so we want to get it right. And if the gentleman will bear with me just for a minute, I would appreciate it. I wanted to show a poster or two to just to kind of put the spending, the so-called stimulus, in perspective. And if my colleagues will look at this first poster, and the question at the top says, can you afford to pay for the Democratic spending bill? And basically, at $825 billion, the economic stimulus plan that's sailing through Congress would cost each American family more than $10,000 on average. More than $10,000. In fact $10,500.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. And I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding. And I thank my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Broun, for his timely and insightful comments. It's good to join with you this hour, Mr. Speaker, to try to shed some light on this issue, a terribly important issue to the American people when we're in these rather dire economic circumstances. But the big problem, of course Representative Akin and Representative Broun, Mr. Speaker, spent time explaining how we got into this mess. And I think it's very important that they did this and kind of set the stage for where we are today, why we're here, how we got there, what the problem is and basically, who's to blame. And certainly, if you do the math, connect the dots, it's pretty clear. I won't go back through that important information. But we're now trying to decide, Mr. Speaker, what to do about it, how to get out of this recession that we're in. And unfortunately, what the Democratic majority and what President Obama has recommended, I just don't think passes the smell test. I really feel that the likelihood of this being successful, when you look, Mr. Speaker, at the spending in this bill, this economic stimulus bill as it's called, where's the beef? I mean, the old expression--I don't see where there's anything or hardly anything in $825 billion that's going to do a whole lot of stimulating.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Exactly. If the gentleman will yield further. Exactly that's what I'm saying. And to put that in more perspective, the average family, for food, clothing and health care, an expensive line item in the family budget, food, clothing and health care, they spend $10,400 and for shelter, $11,600. Fully a third of that cost is what we're putting on their backs. Listen, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, wouldn't we be better off just giving every family in America a check for $3,000? And we could probably end up doing it a whole lot cheaper than $825 billion. And by golly, that would work. So that's what we're trying to do here tonight, Mr. Speaker, is just point out that there's a better way of doing this. We, in the Republican minority, who have not been included, not been asked except asked to vote for this thing, no questions asked, no amendments, we do have a better idea. And I know as we get further into the hour tonight, Mr. Speaker, we'll be talking about that. And I will look forward to that opportunity. I will yield back to the gentleman. I know there's others here on the floor that would like to speak on this issue.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I very much appreciate the gentleman's yielding. I thank him for that. I do have a chart I want to reference. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the American people are beginning to realize that this is unlikely to work and that there is a tremendous burden that it is going to put on them. As I pointed out on the previous chart, it is $10,400 per family. Now, they don't get that. That is not any money that comes to them. That is the debt burden. Now, in fact, in a recent Gallup Poll--the very reliable Gallup Poll. Everybody has heard of Gallup--there was a survey of 1,000 adult people nationwide; thirty-eight percent were in opposition to this bill as proposed, and another 17 percent said no matter what they do with it, no matter what changes they make, this is not the way to go. It is just as Secretary Morgenthau knew back in 1939. I wish Secretary Paulson and Secretary Geithner could understand that. Just throwing more money at this indiscriminately is not going to solve the problem. It is just going to sink us deeper and deeper into a recession and possibly even into a depression. So, yes, we have some ideas, and of course, my colleagues are here, and they are going to present some of these ideas. I want to yield back to the gentleman from Missouri, but let me quickly reference the poster. ``Sizing up the Stimulus'' is the title of the poster. Again, just to put this into perspective, the proposed stimulus is $1.2 trillion when you include the debt service over 10 years. So it's $825 billion and then the debt service. Then you compare that to other expenditures, to very important expenditures--to the Vietnam War, which was $111 billion with a B, not a T; to the invasion of Iraq, which was $551 billion with a B, not a T; and to the New Deal. We were referencing that, and that is what Mr. Morgenthau was talking about. It was $32 billion, and he said it was way too much spending, and here we're talking about $1.2 trillion. Again, I think it would be better to cut taxes for everybody. We'll get into that later. I know the gentleman will do that, and maybe we'll give everybody a check for $2,500 rather than what we are doing. So I yield back to the gentleman, and I thank him for the time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I want to thank my colleague, Representative David Scott, for allowing me to say a few words also about Reverend Jim Higgins, as we have the privilege of really sharing him in our two adjoining districts. And, as David Scott has said, Madam Speaker, Dr. Reverend Major Jim Higgins, as we know, has brought us a very inspiring message as we open business today in the United States House of Representatives as our guest chaplain of the day. But, as Representative Scott said, his service to us and to his constituents in Powder Springs and to our country goes much beyond just the spiritual. When you think about his service as a chaplain in the United States Army and, as David Scott was just saying, his service in Vietnam, and his tour of duties, Madam Speaker, of 18 months. Now, today, the Marines limit rotation to 7 months and the Army to 12 months. But Jim Higgins' rotation in Vietnam--a pretty tough place--was 18 months. Of course, he has this week, as has been said, been recognized as the United States Military Reserve Chaplain of the Year. So we really are indebted to this great man, not only for his spiritual leadership, Jim, but great service to your country.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I do rise in strong opposition to this closed rule, as well as the underlying legislation, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. The Democratic majority has once again brought forward a closed rule that only tramples on the rights of the minority. And at no point in the development of this legislation has the majority even entertained the idea of allowing Republicans to work with them in a bipartisan manner to improve the bill. As a physician Member, I keenly know how important it is that the Federal Government plays a role in providing health care to low-income children. At the same time, we must pass legislation that first reaches those who are most in need of this assistance. During the initial consideration of H.R. 2 by the House, I offered an amendment that would have addressed a very important problem within current law that H.R. 2 overlooks, the practice of some States using loopholes to allow people to disregard significant portions of their income to make them eligible for CHIP and Medicaid. At the same time, some of these same States, these loophole States, have not provided for the children who demonstrate the most need for these programs. Madam Speaker, my commonsense amendment would have simply instituted a gross income cap of 250 percent of the Federal poverty level for both CHIP and Medicaid eligibility, and it would limit any income disregards to a maximum of $250 a month or $3,000 per year. This amendment would grandfather in those individuals who are already receiving Medicaid and CHIP so that we do not deprive current beneficiaries. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues oppose the closed rule.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank my ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee for his generosity. He knows that this Georgia brogue is a little bit slow. But clearly it makes no sense, it makes no sense to crowd them out and put them into this program and then physicians are going to be less inclined to provide the service because their reimbursement under SCHIP or Medicaid is probably 30 percent less than it is in the private market. So while in trying to enroll more children and help more children, I think, unfortunately, you're going to get less coverage and less service for those children. So again, that was a good amendment. I'm sorry I didn't have a chance, Madam Speaker, to offer it. I think we could have made a good bill a whole lot better. And for that reason, I'm going to oppose this bill.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I want to just in closing, Madam Speaker, urge all my colleagues, oppose the closed rule and this underlying legislation. Give us a chance, in a bipartisan spirit, to make this good law even better.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I regretfully rise to oppose H.R. 2, not because I oppose the original legislation--which I think the bill was a very good bill and as a physician Member and a compassion for wanting to extend health care to our children--my concern with the bill with the reauthorization is that it doesn't really limit it to those children that need it the most, those, say, under 200 percent or between 100 and 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. This new bill actually allows that to go up to 300 percent. But, Madam Speaker, there is an even bigger problem. This is a situation that some States use called--well, they're loopholes, really, and they call them income disregards. I think there are about 13 States, Madam Speaker, who utilize that loophole that just simply says to couples or families, If you're not eligible, that is, you make more than 300 percent of the Federal poverty level--well, what is that, about $65,000 a year for a family of 4--then we will just simply disregard the income that you make between 300 and 400 percent of the Federal poverty level and say, We're not going to count that. Let's count--a wink, wink, wink, nod, smoke and mirrors, shell game--not count a certain block of income. And I had an amendment--which I thought was a very good amendment; unfortunately it's a closed rule--but this amendment would simply say that there will be income disregards only in the amount of a maximum of $3,000 a year or $250 a month. Only income disregards may be something like childcare or something of that sort. But to completely disregard, that's where we get into this crowd-out situation, Madam Speaker, where people whose children are already covered in the private market, they're going to drop that, clearly they're going to drop it even though they can afford it so they can get on the government dole. And as was pointed out earlier, a lot of physicians are not going to take the SCHIP patient because of the reimbursement.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. My colleague from New Jersey, I appreciate those figures. And boy, if that doesn't put it into perspective for all of us, Mr. Speaker. Let me just say this, and then I want to recognize my colleague from Minnesota, possibly, for a minute. But at the end of our conference today, Mr. Speaker, with President Obama, our conference chairman, Mike Pence, the gentleman from Indiana, said to the President, one thing is for sure, you have our prayers. And you have our prayers on both sides of the aisle. We'll be praying for the administration, we'll be praying for the leadership. We'll be praying for the majority and the minority that we can do the right thing for the American people. I see that my colleagues are leaving. So as I finish up, again, I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this issue is much too important for partisan politics, but it is about policy. And if we're going to be--we, the Republican minority--are going to be the loyal opposition, then it is our duty, it's our responsibility to express our concern in a respectful way to the President of the United States, to President Obama, and to Majority Leader Reid in the Senate and the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, here in this great body, that we have some concerns. We want you to listen to us. We want to work with you. We want to save this economy so that we can help all the American people.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. At least to work long enough to make them eligible for Social Security, 10 quarters worth of work.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If I reclaim my time just for a second, I hope you will stick with me, I want to hear more from you. But you mentioned the majority CBO, Congressional Budget Office, they came out with a report that said that 7 percent, Mr. Speaker, 7 percent of this money would be spent in 2009 and up to 38 percent by the end of 2010. So we have this dire emergency and we need spending and we need it right now, and yet only 7 percent of all of these projects are getting into the hands of the people, into the economy, to help grow jobs. Where is the emergency? Well, I quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, feel there is an emergency. But that is why we take exception to this program and the many things that are in it that really have nothing to do with emergency spending. I mentioned a few of them at the outset. There are others. There are quite a few others. In fact, Mr. Garrett, I know you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, I think he would, that when President Obama came to the conference today, he admitted the same thing. He said look, there is stuff in there if I had my complete way, and I am not sure why he doesn't, but he does have to deal, of course, with the legislative branch, that being Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate side, but there are things that I think clearly should be, and I bet my colleague from New Jersey would agree with me, it is just regular spending. Whether we are talking about some of the trillions of dollars on education spending, IDEA, increasing Pell Grants, that is part of a regular process that ought to work its way through the authorizing committee, Education and the Workforce, and let the appropriators appropriate money under regular order. That is not emergency spending. So we have turned this $825 billion emergency spending package literally into a Christmas tree, and it is not going to help, it is not going to get us out of this deep recession. And we need something that is going to work. I yield to my friend.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. It is my privilege this evening to have the opportunity on behalf of our leadership to take this hour and talk about a number of things, particularly to discuss this economic stimulus package that we are going to be voting on very soon, probably tomorrow. And we will get into that, and hopefully some of my colleagues will join me on the floor. But, before I begin that discussion, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take an opportunity to rise and to recognize a great woman who I am blessed to call Aunt Eleanor on her 95th birthday. Eleanor Gingrey Murphy turned 95 years old today, Tuesday, January 27, 2009. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend her birthday celebration, but I wanted to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to honor Aunt Eleanor and wish her a happy and a healthy birthday. Eleanor Gingrey Murphy has lived a great life and has been a blessing to both her family and to her community. She was born on January 27, 1914, to Charlie and Effie Eubanks Gingrey, my grandparents, in Warrenville, South Carolina, just outside of my hometown of Augusta, Georgia. At the time of her birth, she had two older brothers, Bill and my father James Gingrey. About 2 years after her birth, her youngest brother Charles was born. Just before Aunt Eleanor's fourth birthday, her mom died in childbirth at age 26. My grandfather, Charlie, worked hard as a mail carrier and later as a carpenter to provide for his four children. But times were tough, Mr. Speaker, and the children often had to take care of each other when aunts and uncles were not available. After school, they often roamed the woods, learning the names of wild berries and fruits that were edible, and they would collect them and bring them home for food. Eleanor was left to do all the cooking for the family at an early age; and she must have learned well, for she is a wonderful cook today. After high school, Eleanor followed her brothers to New York, where they had hitchhiked in their mid teens to search for work. While in the Big Apple, she met Bill Murphy. Bill Murphy, an Irish immigrant who immigrated legally to the United States with his family from Limerick, Ireland. Eleanor and Bill fell in love and were married in 1937 at the St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church in New York City. They had both been working at a little restaurant, Mr. Speaker. Some of my New York colleagues may remember it; I think it was called the Horn and Heart, where you put a little coin in a slot and you could see your food and you pull out a sandwich or a salad or a bowl of soup. Well, they were blessed with five sons, my cousins, Larry, Billy, Charles, Tom, and Kenneth. Shortly after the birth of their second son, Billy, Eleanor and Bill left New York City, and they settled their family in a little town called Edgefield, South Carolina. Tragically, my Uncle Bill left this world at the age of 44 after suffering a heart attack while supervising a sandlot baseball game that he had organized among his own sons and the African American neighbors. Once again, Aunt Eleanor was left to care for her family. Her boys were now becoming teenagers. At the time of my uncle's death their ages, Mr. Speaker, were 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19. And, believe me, times were not easy. Eleanor enrolled in nursing school, and she earned her LPN in order to support her family. Her oldest son Larry had to cut short his Navy enlistment to help out at home. Through the years, Eleanor's family has continued to grow with her love and her support. She now has 12 grandchildren, and 20, and I understand soon to be 21, great grandchildren. Aunt Eleanor is a devout Christian woman who has a deep love for her family. She often remarks how blessed she has been to be able to watch her children become old men. Fortunately, that includes her nephews and niece, of which I am a proud member. Eleanor Murphy is a remarkable, remarkable woman with a generous and a loving spirit, and I ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me tonight in wishing my aunt, Eleanor Margarite Gingrey Murphy, a happy and a blessed 95th birthday. And I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to take the first part of this hour to discuss this wonderful, wonderful woman and to pay my respects to her. Mr. Speaker, this is quite a week. We are going to be voting tomorrow on a bill that would spend $825 billion to stimulate our economy. I know that we all agree, both Republicans and Democrats, in this body and 100 Senators in the other body, that these are dire economic times. This country is in a deep recession, and something truly needs to be done about it. We need to stimulate the economy, we need to grow jobs, we need to free up credit markets, and we need to do it quickly. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that this package is not the right package. Sure, there are some tax cuts in the package and there are some spending programs; but when this was first described, the idea was there would be monies spent for infrastructure projects all across this country, restoration of roads and bridges, money spent on rapid transit and repairing decaying infrastructure. And each State was asked to prepare a list of projects, and States including my own of Georgia laboriously went through this process to find projects, so-called spade or shovel ready projects that we could immediately get started or purchasing right away and getting these projects underway and putting people back to work. And it was an estimate that several hundred billion dollars would be spent on the these projects. But as this program has developed, and we now today at the 11th hour looking at this bill as it has been marked up on the House side, what we see is far different from what was originally projected. It is not unlike what happened before the first of the year back at the end of the 110th Congress when Secretary Treasury Paulson came to the Congress, to both the House and the Senate, and said: Look, the sky is falling; we are in dire economic straits. And I have a plan; it is just three pages long, but I have a plan. And I am going to ask you to authorize me to spend $800 billion to purchase something that was referred to, Mr. Speaker, as troubled assets, so the program became known as the TARP program, Troubled Asset Relief Program. And I am not going to try to get too deep into the weeds of all of this, but the bottom line is that many financial institutions across the country were holding literally 50, 75, in some cases hundreds of billions of dollars worth of these collateralized, securitized mortgages, many of which contained subprime loans that had questionable value, particularly with the value of homes going down, and sometimes the mortgage alone on these homes was worth far more than the value of the home that they represented. But in any regard, that is what the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board said to us, and that we needed to give them that authority to do it, and to do it quickly. So, basically, over my vote and many on my side of the aisle, this bill did pass, and $350 billion was spent and spent quickly. But, Mr. Speaker, to this day I don't believe one thin dime has been used to purchase a troubled asset. No. The Secretary of the Treasury, former Secretary of the Treasury made a decision that maybe the British had a better plan, one that was not discussed with us at any time, at any time, as we deliberated and debated that bill. And we finally made some changes to it, and it went from a three-page bill to a 110-page bill, and at no time was there any discussion though of taking that money and literally giving it to the large national banks and regional banks to restore their capital and to purchase stock in these banks, preferred stock, and so the government would literally take an ownership interest in our banking system. So that is basically what happened. No troubled assets were purchased. And what happened to the credit markets and the ability for a small business man or woman to get a loan from a bank, or indeed a person to get an automobile loan or someone to borrow a little money to send their child to college or get them through that last semester? That money was frozen. There was nothing available. And so this program, to my way of thinking, Mr. Speaker, hasn't worked at all. And it is pretty depressing when it was not even something that we in this Congress had talked about. This was just a decision that was made because the Secretary of the Treasury said: Well, there is some fine print or a section in the bill that says I have the authority to do this. And he did it. And so now as we come back for the 111th, and just before President Obama was sworn in for his inauguration on January 20th, former President Bush asked for the rest of the money, so to speak, another $350 billion; and yet, again, no real restrictions on how that money was going to be spent, and no accountability, no transparency. And so we on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, have some real concerns about what we are doing to this country and the amount of money we are spending. Now, talking about the TARP program, that is a total of $800 billion. And now we are on the eve, literally, of passing another piece of legislation where we spend $825 billion, but some say it will end up being $1.5 trillion, or possibly even more, on a massive spending program that is a far cry from what we were originally told; that is, most of this money would be put immediately to work on spade ready or shovel ready infrastructure projects across this country repairing roads and bridges and some for mass transit. And when we look at the content of the bill and we see things like hundreds of millions of dollars to resod the National Mall and several hundred million dollars for a contraception program, to me, that has very, very little, if anything, Mr. Speaker, to do with stimulating the economy. It just simply does not. Fortunately, and I commend President Obama for this, there are some tax cuts in this economic stimulus package. But some $80 billion of $250 billion of tax cuts are literally going to people, Mr. Speaker, who currently are not paying any Federal withholding tax. They have no obligation to, because with their income and the amount of deductions, then they don't owe any Federal income tax but they do pay a payroll tax. So this is a refundable tax credit for those individuals, and it amounts to, as I say, approaching $70 billion. And it is really taking money out of the Social Security system and the Medicare system that benefits that group of people more than any other in our population. A little lesson on Social Security, Mr. Speaker, is that individuals who are eligible for Social Security, who are in the lower income levels, their monthly check on Social Security replaces far more of their income than the monthly check to someone who is a higher income earner. Someone at a higher income level may get 15 percent or less of their income replaced by Social Security; but individuals at that lower income level who pay no withholding tax, their income replacement by Social Security is up to 40 or 45 percent. And so to literally take that money and take it out of the Social Security system, to me it seems like it penalizes them more than it helps them. That is something that hasn't really been discussed. I haven't heard others discuss it, Mr. Speaker. But maybe we will hear more about that tonight from some of my other colleagues. There is one most important point that I would like to make. And of course, President Obama very respectfully came to the Republican Conference today. I think he was very forthright with us. I think most, all of my colleagues on the Republican side would agree that the exchange was respectful, sincere and honest. There were honest differences of opinion in regard to what kind of taxes we really feel like we need to stimulate this economy. We Republicans feel very strongly that the tax breaks need to be across the board, that everybody that pays taxes needs to have a tax cut, not have a preponderance of the tax break going to those who currently don't pay any taxes. But most importantly, even more importantly than individual lowering of marginal rates, is to help our corporate men and women, small businesses. I'm not talking about IBM or General Motors or Apple Computer or anybody in that category. I'm talking about small businessmen and women, the ones that, quite honestly, because we goofed up the TARP program, are having such a desperate time getting a loan, a bridge loan to keep those businesses going and to keep the employment rate up in this country. They're not getting what they need. So we feel very strongly that there should be a significant lowering of the corporate income tax rate, maybe from 35 current down to 25 percent. We feel like that a person who has a 401(k) or an IRA plan, Mr. Speaker, who is under age 59\1/2\ and normally would be penalized and have to pay a tax burden for taking money out prematurely from one of those plans, in this desperate year or two, there should be no penalty for withdrawing money out of a 401(k) or an IRA to possibly pay the heating bill or pay for a child's surgery or to ward off foreclosure when they are a couple of months behind on a mortgage payment. Those are the kind of things that we, on the Republican side, have tried to bring to the committees of jurisdiction that marked up this bill last week, the Appropriations Committee, the Ways and Means Committee and the committee on which I now serve proudly, the Energy and Commerce Committee. And every little amendment, there weren't many, Mr. Speaker, that we got approved in Energy and Commerce last week, lo and behold, when it was all said and done, those amendments were pulled out of the final bill. And so the bill that we are seeing today, which is kind of an amalgam of those three bills sort of put together, maybe rewritten by the majority leader and the Speaker of the House, none of those Republican amendments, those well-thought-out amendments, after a 12\1/2\ hour markup, a lot of hard work went into that, and all of a sudden, poof, they are gone. And so when President Obama was at our conference today, Mr. Speaker, we talked to him about that. And he listened. I think he sincerely listened. He made no promises. But I thought it was a very good opportunity, a very good exchange and a good start. And as he pointed out, we would love to be able to have a bill that we could agree on that had a good chance of stimulating this economy and stimulating it quickly and that we could do it in a bipartisan way. But for that to happen, Mr. Speaker, he is going to have to make some changes that we Republicans can believe in. Let me repeat that. That has been the motto, ``change you can believe in.'' He, in this bill, to get Republican support, is going to have to make some changes that we Republicans and the people that we represent, literally 48 percent of the population of this country, that they, too, can believe in. And so we can only hope that as this bill is marked up in the Senate, and clearly, the two will not be the same, and ultimately there will be a conference report and some changes will be made. And I hope that President Obama, in working with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, Mr. Speaker, we can work with the Republican minority with our Leader Boehner, John Boehner, a gentleman from Ohio, and the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, a gentleman from Kentucky, that we can get together and this can be a work that we can be proud of that has a good chance of success, that truly we will be pouring water on a fire and not gasoline on a fire. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I see that I have been joined by one of my colleagues, indeed one of my classmates from New Jersey, a gentleman that has served on the Financial Services Committee, he served on the Budget Committee, and I think he has an understanding of this whole process far deeper than most Members. Let me just put it that way. And so I'm pleased to have with us tonight my good friend from New Jersey, Scott Garrett. And Mr. Garrett, I will yield some time to you.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Absolutely. Again, that was a CBO report and it was 7 percent in 2009.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, and I would say to my colleague that the jobs are being lost today. They are not being lost 18 months from now. God help us if we are losing these kinds of job 6, 12, 18 months from now. We better be growing jobs and not losing 15,000, and I think Pfizer Pharmaceutical announced they were going to cut 15,000 jobs out of their workforce. Apple for the first time in its history I think recently announced a significant job loss. The big three automobile manufacturers, despite the fact that they got what, at least $5 billion, including GMAC, another billion in the first tranche of the TARP money, so these jobs are being lost and lost now. And as my colleague from New Jersey points out, we need to save these jobs, save the ones that we can and grow new jobs, but not 6, 12, 18 months from now but right now. I wanted to just mention for my colleagues' sake on both sides of the aisle, sometimes it is a little difficult to know what is exactly in these massive bills, particularly one that has been brought to the floor in such rapid-fire fashion without any input really from the minority side, but maybe without much input, if any, from the rank and file of the Democratic majority. But, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, including Mr. Garrett from New Jersey, just listen to a few of the things that are in this economic stimulus package: $650 million for digital TV coupons; $650 million for new cars for the Federal Government; $6 billion for colleges and universities, many of which have billion dollar endowments; $50 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. That is a perfect example of something, Mr. Speaker, that should be funded under regular order. It should be debated and a case made whether or not that needs to be increased or decreased, not thrown in here in the dark of night and said we are going to spend $50 million because it is part of an economic stimulus package. It is not. There is $44 million for repairs to the United States Department of Agriculture headquarters. What do they need new carpet, retrofitting of their bathroom fixtures? Can't that wait? Is that going to create new jobs? I don't think so. There is $200 million as we said earlier for The National Mall, including $21 million for sod. I could go on and on. Some might say you are nitpicking, you are just going in there and picking out things that sound and look bad. Believe me, there are others that sound and look a whole lot worse. It is just a recurring theme. So we feel very strongly, and I want to spend some time talking about this because my colleague on the floor with me tonight, Representative Garrett from New Jersey, he and I are both members of the Republican Study Committee, the more conservative 108 Republican Members out of about 175 of us now, in the minority, who have a better plan, we think, for stimulating this economy. We call it the Economic Recovery and Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2009. I want to bring out just a few of the things that are in that bill. We have submitted it. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill. I think the original cosponsors, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Speaker, and that would be Dr. Tom Price of my great home State of Georgia, and Jim Jordan, the gentleman from Ohio, and a couple of other members of the Republican Study Committee, but here are some of the provisions. We would provide an across-the-board tax cut of 5 percent for everybody who pays taxes. Every marginal rate, we would cut 5 percent. If you are paying 10 percent, it is 5. If you are paying in the 15 percent bracket, it is 10. If you are paying in the 28 percent bracket, it is 23. And we feel very strongly about that. We would increase the child tax credit from $1,000 to $5,000. We would repeal the AMT. Very quickly, I think the general public has heard enough about this to understand it. I know my colleagues understand it. AMT, alternative minimum tax, which was put in place 25 or 30 years ago to make sure that maybe 125 ultra-rich people had to pay some taxes, they couldn't use legal loopholes with very smart Philadelphia tax lawyers to get out of paying any taxes, and so it had to be calculated in two ways and they had to pay an alternative minimum tax. Well, it was not indexed for inflation and this year come April 15, 25 million middle income taxpayers are getting caught by the AMT, and that should be repealed. It should not have any kind of a PAYGO provision. It is a wrong tax. It was never meant to apply to these 24 million, and it should be repealed and repealed permanently. We want to make the capital gains tax lower and we want to make the dividends tax rate 15 percent and permanent. We want to increase by 50 percent the value of the tax deduction for interest on student loans and the tax deduction for qualified higher education expenses. We want to make all withdrawals from retirement accounts tax free, as I said earlier, during the year 2009. There are a number of other provisions in the bill. I know that my colleague from New Jersey is very familiar with that. I would love to yield to him at this time and we will further discuss the RSC stimulus bill which is called the Economic Recovery and Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2009 which we firmly believe will get us out of this recession because people will have money in their hands that they will spend and we will not have to worry about this massive bureaucracy throwing $825 billion out the window and hoping that it sticks somewhere. I yield to my friend.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. This is without a doubt. And I'm glad you mentioned section 179. I think under current law, section 179, Mr. Speaker, of course is that section of the Internal Revenue Code which does allow a small business to expense a certain amount of capital improvement or equipment purchase in the very first year. But it's limited under current law, I believe--Mr. Garrett, correct me if I'm wrong--to about $125,000. We say, in the Economic Recovery and Middle Class Relief Act of 2009, the RSC stimulus package, that that ought to be expanded. And not only that, but also to immediately cut the top corporate income tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent. And my colleagues and my friends, that would just align us with the average rate in the European Union. We're all talking about the European Union and what they're doing on cap and trade and global warming and how we ought to get in line with that--even though it will probably break our economy at a time that we can ill afford to do so--but yet we let them rob our bank, literally, with a more attractive corporate tax rate, and we drive our corporations offshore. That makes absolutely no sense. So there are so many things that we could do with the tax code. And I want to say one other thing before yielding back to my colleague. You know, I've heard the majority side talk about the tax portion of this stimulus bill, the $250 billion or so worth of tax incentives, and this business of refundability of a tax credit to people for their payroll taxes, people that don't even pay taxes. And the attitude is that, well, the RSC is wrong; you shouldn't cut taxes across the board because people at a higher income level--let's say $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year--they won't have to spend that money and they will just hold onto it and it won't get flowing in the economy, it won't stimulate the economy. But these nearly poor and poor people have no choice but to spend that money because they're desperate, they have to spend the money. They can't save it, they can't pay down their debt, they can't put it in a college fund for their child. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is insulting to these people--good, hardworking salt-of-the-earth people--who I truly believe know how to control their money and know when to spend and know when to save and know when to pay down debt and know when to tear up their credit cards. But no, we have this attitude that only uncle knows, only uncle knows and has to make the decision for us. And I'm just afraid, Mr. Speaker--and that's why I'm opposed to this bill in its present form--I just feel that we're only going to get one shot at this. We are losing too many jobs, the economy is in a severe downturn--I think it's fair to say a deep recession--and we need to give it our best shot. And we certainly don't need to be throwing gasoline on the fire. And so I yield back to my colleague for some additional comments and then we'll move to close.

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. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time, and I do rise, unfortunately, in opposition to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the so-called stimulus package. Mr. Chairman, we spent 12 hours in the Energy and Commerce Committee marking our portion of this bill up last week, and a few, a very few Republican amendments were approved and summarily stripped out as we see this new bill before us today. But it is not really process that is my objection, it is just that I have a great fear that instead of throwing water on a fire, as it has been described, this economic problem that we have, we are about to throw kerosene on the fire and make the matter a lot worse. We tried to explain that to President Obama when he visited our conference today, and we want him to show some changes in the bill that we Republicans can accept, like more tax breaks for small businesses and entrepreneurs who create jobs. I regretfully oppose the bill.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Senate bill 328, the DTV Delay Act. Due to the very rushed nature by which the legislation is being considered this evening, I have a number of concerns about both the policy and procedure represented within S. 328. Basically, we are asked to vote on legislation that will have a significant impact on the telecommunications industry and our first responders without giving it proper consideration. Mr. Speaker, the Nielsen Company estimated this past November that 93 percent of homes in the United States already had one or more TVs ready for the digital television transition. This same study indicates that 83 percent of households across the country are completely prepared for this transition. Despite the fact that the vast majority of households across the country have taken the necessary steps to be ready for DTV transition, the DTV Delay Act would sacrifice the preparation of the masses as a means to assist the very few. Delay in this transition will only cost the taxpayers, needlessly, $750 million, at a time when we are facing a $1.2 trillion budget. Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission stated in its report that this transition should have occurred years ago to free up the lower frequency analog signals for police, firefighters, emergency personnel, and public officials. Because this transition has been years in the making, for the benefit of our brave first responders, I believe that we need to move forward in this transition as scheduled, instead of delaying it until June. Mr. Speaker, delaying the digital television will only create more of a financial burden for American taxpayers and create further confusion among the public. For these reasons, I urge all my colleagues oppose the DTV Delay Act.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Dr. Burgess, thank you. And I also want to hear, Mr. Speaker, from Judge Gohmert on this very important subject. I just want to mention one other thing, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this so-called rescue, or economic stimulus package, that we marked up in the Energy and Commerce Committee last Thursday in a 12-hour markup. Dr. Burgess initially was talking about a couple of amendments that he and Mr. Whitfield from Kentucky had in regard to a sustainable growth rate. And this was a golden opportunity to fix that. Unfortunately, along party lines, Mr. Speaker, both of those very good amendments were voted down. And then finally, yours truly, Dr. Gingrey, had an amendment that said, okay, if you won't do that, how about just simply freezing the reimbursement rate for physicians at 2009 levels for 2010? No update, no upgrade whatsoever, just simply freeze it. And Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the chairman's response was, we want to do that, but not in this bill. It's not time. And I think I said, well, if not us, who? And if not now, when? And so we went back and forth. And unfortunately, along party lines, my simple amendment failed as well. And I was very, very disappointed. But I want to thank the gentleman, again, from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for giving me an opportunity to join with him tonight and give me some time. And I yield back to him so that we can hear from Louie Gohmert, Judge Gohmert, from Texas.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I also would like to inquire if I too am a cosponsor of that excellent piece of legislation.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I might say the real Dr. Phil, as a matter of fact. I am certainly pleased tonight to join my colleague, my colleague that I have just joined on the Energy and Commerce Committee in this 111th Congress, and I am proud to have the opportunity to do that, to really have a seat at the table of one of the two main committees of the House that deal with health care, deal with all of Medicare and Medicaid and SCHIP, many of the things that the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, Mr. Speaker, had been speaking about during the initial part of this hour. These are very important things, as he talked about the recent passage of the expanded reauthorization of the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, what I am referencing, and brought out the fact that there were so many things in that reauthorization and expansion over the next 4\1/2\ years that caused Dr. Burgess and myself and many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle to vote ``no'' on something that, quite honestly, we really had hoped to be able to vote ``yes'' because this idea that was originated back in 1997 for this legislation to help families who are not poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid. And that is at 100 percent of the Federal poverty level, about $22,000, $23,000 a year for a family of four. They are not below that level of income, but yet not making enough money to really be able to afford to provide health insurance for their children. So that is what the original SCHIP bill was all about it. It was authorized for 10 years; it was a $40 billion bill, as I recall, and it would cover those children whose family income was above 100,000 but under 200,000. So you are talking about $44,000, $45,000 a year for a family of four. And, clearly, providing health insurance on that kind of income is a strain, is a struggle, and of course many of those youngsters were not insured. So the program was good; and of course it expired. It was time for reauthorization. Former President Bush realized that more money needed to be appropriated for this program. There were a significant number of children, maybe as many as 2 million or 3 million, that were not being covered who were in that income category, their family income, between 100 and 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. And I certainly was in favor of a 25 percent, 30 percent, maybe even a 40 percent expansion of the program to make sure that we reached as close as possible to a 100 percent saturation level, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, for those children. I think everyone on both sides of the aisle would agree that that clearly needs to be done. But, unfortunately, for some reason the Democratic majority wanted to expand this program. When you extrapolate from the 4\1/2\ year amount of expenditure to a 10-year program, it would be a 100 percent increase in the amount of funding. The thing about it is that there are things in the bill that allowed the abuses that existed to continue and even worsening that situation. And I want, Mr. Speaker, to mention a couple of those, because I think it is very important for people to understand why a physician member of this body, indeed two right here on the floor this evening, who delivered babies as a profession, brought little children into the world, would vote against this program. And here are some of the reasons: One of the changes in the reauthorization said that no longer would an immigrant have to have a 5-year waiting period before they would become eligible. Well, indeed, our immigration laws have been on the books for a long time. They get changed periodically. But in the last significant change of immigration law, it basically said: We don't want to have a magnet here in this country and to say to everybody across the world, come one, come all, to come to this country and get on the government dole, the freebies. No, that is not the reason we want immigrants to come to the country. We want them to come, to assimilate into our society, to contribute to our society, to, yes, enjoy the American dream. But that provision says that as a legal person comes into this country, they have to have a sponsor. They have to have someone who is willing to say that that won't happen, that they will not become a ward of the state, certainly not within 5 years. So this reauthorization says: Oh, no, we are going to do away with that. States don't have to abide by that anymore. They can spend SCHIP money on someone that has been here 6 months. Even worse than that, Mr. Speaker, is the provision in regard to illegals. It says specifically in the language of the bill that no illegal immigrant is eligible; but yet, then it goes on to say that the verification system for an immigrant, whether or not they are here legally, is so watered down that it is almost like a wink and a nod to say, ``Come on, it is okay. All you have to do is give a nine-digit number for your Social Security number. You don't have to show a Social Security card, but you have to give a number. Yeah, that is nine digits; you are eligible.'' These kind of things were bad enough, but I want to point out something else, Mr. Speaker, and that is a little game that some States I think 13 or 14, and my colleagues are aware of this, a little game that some States have been using to disregard, to actually disregard blocks of income, to say, ``Oh, you are making 350 percent of the Federal poverty level. So you wouldn't normally be eligible, but we are just going to simply not count that money that your parents have earned above 200 percent. We are not going to count that. We are just going to simply disregard it.'' And they are getting away with that. And so in some States there are indeed, and it will continue, that children of families making up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level, I think we are talking now about $80,000 a year for a family of four, where they can indeed afford to pay for private health insurance for their children, and they are insured in many instances. So naturally, if they get an opportunity like this, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to drop that private coverage and get on the freebie government trough, who wouldn't? Well, I wouldn't. But a lot of people would and a lot of people did and do. So I had an amendment, a very straightforward amendment that said we are going to end the shenanigans of income disregard both for the Medicaid program and for the SCHIP program. Why would I want to do that, Mr. Speaker? I would want to do it so that those children who truly have the need, for whom the program was designed, for who we are willing to spend taxpayer money, that they get coverage, and it doesn't go to the upper middle income who clearly don't need it. So there are a lot of little things that I could go on, on that, but I know that we have got others who want to speak tonight on health care and I want to make sure there is plenty of time for others. And hopefully during the hour, time permitting, I would like to come back to some of the other issues that Dr. Burgess was talking about, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this economic stimulus package that we are about to vote on tomorrow and why I think that it is not going to work. I wish it would work. I hope and pray that it does work. But I have grave misgivings about it, and I would like to have an opportunity later on in the hour to discuss that further, as I know that my colleagues will, also.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, in this troubled economy with fluctuating markets and fiscal uncertainty, it is the small business owner that keeps our economy functioning and keeps the American dream alive. I am honored to represent thousands of small business owners whose associations, the National Franchisee Association (NFA) and the National Association Management Group (NAMG), are headquartered in my district in Kennesaw, Georgia. These associations would like to recognize three distinct leaders; NFA Chairman Joseph Anghelone, NAMG Chairman William Patterson and NFA Government Relations Committee Chairman Benjamin Jarratt. Mr. Joseph Anghelone began his tenure as the NFA Chairman in February of 2006, and since then he has established a record of dedication to the National Franchisee Association and its membership. During his years of selfless service, Mr. Anghelone has been committed to advancing the Burger King Brand through vigorous advocacy on all levels. In addition to his role as NFA Chairman, Mr. Anghelone has served as the Franchise Relations Committee Chairman and Diversity Affairs Committee Chairman during his term. While his duties have been heavy, Mr. Anghelone has put the association and its membership ahead of himself, to the betterment of the franchisee community. Mr. William Patterson has served as the Chairman of the National Association Management Group since April of 2006. Previously Mr. Patterson held the post of NAMG Board Director, a position he began in February of 2005. Mr. Patterson has displayed diligent service to NAMG and its Board of Directors. This service has been marked by a dedication to the growth and continued development of the organization while providing steadfast leadership and direction. Mr. Benjamin Jarratt was selected to serve as the NFA Secretary in February 2006, and since then he has assumed the role of NFA Government Relations Committee Chairman. In that position. Mr. Jarratt has played a significant role in the development of the NFA's Government Relations advocacy efforts. In addition, Mr. Jarratt served as the Chairman of the NFA's Government Relations Summit in 2007 and again in 2008. Mr. Jarratt has developed a reputation as a staunch advocate for the interests of franchisees and their businesses. The National Franchisee Association and National Association Management Group continue to grow and prosper in the face of numerous challenges, which is a testament to the efforts of these three outstanding individuals. The NFA and NAMG will be eternally grateful for the leadership they have provided.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of H. Res. 39, to honor the contributions of Catholic schools across the country, and in honor of National Catholic Schools Week from January 25 through January 31. I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Lipinski from Illinois and Mr. Smith from New Jersey, for their leadership in bringing this resolution to the House floor today. As a graduate of Catholic elementary and high schools, Sacred Heart Academy and Aquinas High School in Augusta, Georgia, I am keenly aware of the contributions that they provide to the 2.3 million students educated in Catholic schools across the country every year. These include close to 1,200 students at three Catholic schools in my district: St. Catherine of Siena in Kennesaw, St. Joseph's in my hometown of Marietta, and St. Mary's in Rome, Georgia. Not only do Catholic schools, like Sacred Heart and Aquinas, provide a strong and competitive academic environment, they also teach moral and ethical standards, skills for living and self-esteem, discipline and respect for authority, and a Christian integration of spirit, mind and body in each of their students. Upon graduating from Aquinas, I thought that the Catholic school curriculum would be what best prepared me for my future. However, I must admit that I was wrong about that. While the strenuous academics at Sacred Heart and Aquinas did lay the foundation for my success at both Georgia Tech and The Medical College of Georgia, it was the faith and ethical standards taught at these schools that truly prepared me for any of life's struggles. Madam Speaker, while opening and running my medical practice, the respect for life taught at Sacred Heart and Aquinas led me to value and care for life at all stages, indeed from the moment of conception until natural death. Now that I have left my medical career to serve as a Member of Congress, I find the lessons learned from my days at Catholic schools more valuable now than ever. On a daily basis, I am confronted by difficult questions that affect millions of lives. If it were not for the moral standards and faith in God taught at Sacred Heart and Aquinas, I do not believe I could properly represent the people of northwest Georgia. Madam Speaker, our education system is only made stronger by Catholic schools in northwest Georgia and throughout the Nation which fully prepare their students for a brighter future. I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 39.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this rule, which denies Members of this House an opportunity to have their amendments openly debated and given an up- or-down vote. The amendment which I offered, which was not made in order, would have very simply prohibited any additional budget authority for the TARP program unless at least 30 percent of the final $350 billion tranche is used to assist smaller, local community financial institutions. The 30 percent floor reflects the fact that approximately 30 percent of our Nation's deposits are held in these institutions, some 7,000 of them across the country. Mr. Speaker, without question, these smaller institutions are suffering on the front lines of a crisis that they did not create. However, they are uniquely positioned to help provide much-needed credit access to ordinary citizens looking to buy a car or buy a home or invest in a small business. Allow me to give an example. With every dollar in new capital a community bank can raise, it will help facilitate an additional $7 to $10 of lending in their communities. So by guaranteeing an appropriate portion of TARP authority to community institutions, we can better ensure this capital will indeed be put to good use. Mr. Speaker, when Congress first considered the economic stabilization package last fall, the most severe threat presented to us was across-the-board credit freeze that would have stopped all financial activity in its tracks. Well, we may have avoided a catastrophe on Wall Street, but now is the time to encourage lending and capital on Main Street. And while I am pleased to see the underlying bill recognizes that community financial institutions, including those that are privately thinly held or subchapter S should have are the same level of access to the program as larger institutions, H.R. 384 does not go far enough. We must address the current crisis from a systemic perspective, and my amendment, I believe, would have fostered meaningful participation from the smaller financial institutions which, after all, Mr. Speaker, are vital to the economic recovery of our Nation, our States, our congressional districts. They are the lifeblood. I ask my colleagues to oppose the rule.