Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman. No question about it, physicians are small businessmen and women. I do feel a little bit like a fish out of water with the economic competitors caucus. Most of my colleagues who have spoken here are, indeed, without question, small businessmen and women, and, in fact, of course, Representative Conaway from Texas is a CPA. But as Representative Shuster is saying, physicians are small businessmen and women. Even a small practice like the one I was in with the four or five OB/GYN doctors, we probably had 40 employees, nurses, front office people, lab people. Bill Shuster is absolutely right: we had to meet a payroll, we had to provide health insurance, we had to provide benefits. We had to worry about how we are going to have the money to expand and maybe bring in a new partner and grow the practice. My colleagues were talking about section 179 under the IRS Tax Code that under Republican leadership would increase the amount that could be deducted on capital improvements, bricks and mortar, putting in a new X-ray machine, whatever, from $25,000 to $100,000, and to allow that small businessman and -woman to write off an additional $300,000 worth of capital improvement, investment, job growth, over an accelerated period of time. That has, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, without question, has stimulated this economy. As I listen to my colleagues in the first part of the Special Order talking about the job growth, the unemployment rate, the increase, the amount of revenue, particularly over the last couple of years, I think we are talking about maybe an additional $400 billion worth of revenue after these tax cuts that includes low and marginal rates for every single taxpayer, the increase in child tax credit from $600 a child to $1,000 a child, eliminating the marriage tax penalty that Mr. Conaway talked about, eliminating that death tax. We have, Mr. Speaker, created 7 million additional jobs since the spring of 2003. When I first got here in the early part of 2003, for months at a time I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about, watch, we have lost another 30,000 jobs this month, we have lost another 40,000 jobs this month. Now they can't say that because I think we have gone something like 18 straight months with job growth. But what I do hear them saying is, oh, these are service jobs, these are minimum-wage jobs. They are not important. I didn't hear that argument when they were wailing away about the fact that we are losing jobs. We could have said, well, these are unimportant jobs, these are seasonal jobs, these are service jobs. They are not that important to the economy. They are important to the economy, and they create dignity of work and pride and an accomplishment, people putting out a day's work for a day's pay. So that is really what we have done here. I think that what my good friend from Pennsylvania was saying cuts right to the chase: PAYGO rules as adopted in that omnibus rules package for the 110th Congress that was passed last week is a recipe for making it easier to raise taxes and more difficult indeed, Mr. Speaker, if not impossible, to lower taxes. And that is exactly what these new PAYGO rules do. Because under these rules, as my colleagues know, you can raise taxes without any offsetting cut by simply going through this process of reconciliation and raise all this entitlement spending, and that is exactly what will happen. Representative Shuster was talking, or maybe Mr. Conaway, a few minutes ago about this bill that we just passed in regard to completing the promises of the 9/11 Commission. It doesn't do that; it is an absolute farce to suggest that it does. But there is no question that inspecting every single piece of cargo, every single crate that comes into this country through a maritime port, can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what the cost is? They totally ignored how we are going to pay for that. So this PAYGO business, it is not law. It is not in legislation. It does not have the force of that, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can simply waive a rule any time they want to in term of PAYGO. So we need to be truthful to the American people. It has been said during this hour that, in 1960, we had a Democratic President, President Kennedy, and he cut taxes, and we raised revenue; President Reagan did it in 1980; and President George W. Bush has done it in 2001 and 2003. We have not lost revenue because of lower rates and tax incentives mainly for small businessmen and women; we have created an additional 7 million jobs. And, yes, they are paying taxes at a lower rate. Yes, they are getting to deduct certain things to help them be able to grow their businesses. And so you have a lot more people, 7 million, indeed who are paying taxes or paying at a lower rate. But when you crunch the numbers, and I am not a math major, but that is where you come up with an additional $450 billion. Whereas, on this static scoring system that we get from OMB and CBO, they say, well, because you have cut the rate here and you cut the rate there and you have given $1,000 instead of $600 per child and you are finally getting rid of the death tax, over 10 years, this is going to cost $1.3 trillion. Well, yes, if it didn't work, it was going to cost $1.3 trillion. But the fact is, it did work. Instead of costing money, we raised revenue, as Representative Shuster has pointed out. But I will guarantee you one thing, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, if you let these tax cuts expire, and there is no question about the cost to the American taxpayer and it is real, it will be an additional $2.4 million. Mr. Speaker, with that I am going to turn it over to the real experts on business. But I appreciate the opportunity of joining them tonight and weighing in on this.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of Captain Hayes Clayton, a heroic member of our military who was killed in action on Christmas day in Balad, Iraq. Captain Clayton was a classmate of my daughter, Laura Neil. She remembers his strength of character. Others have remembered his strength of faith. Indeed, Captain Clayton leaves behind a legacy of living by the highest moral principles. Before enlisting in the Army, Captain Clayton was known as a standout defensive end on the football team at Marietta High School and a skilled Army ROTC member at Fort Valley State University in Georgia. Captain Clayton leaves behind his parents, Reverend Hayes and Marlena Clayton, his brothers Eric and Michael, his loving wife Army First Lieutenant Monica Clayton, and a precious 4-month-old son, Hayes, III, who proudly carries on his father's name. Mr. Speaker, my prayers go out to his family and my deepest gratitude goes out for his selfless and deep sacrifice for our Nation. I ask you to join me in honoring the distinguished memory of Captain Hayes Clayton.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Title V of H. Res. 6 and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure. Since the election we have heard promises of grandeur from the new Democrat majority. They have promised to usher in a new era of civility, bi-partisanship, and cooperation into the halls of Congress. They have repeatedly stated that the American people want a civilized tone in Washington. But it appears the Democrats are ignoring their own message. In the opening hours of this Congress, with their very first piece of business, the Democrats have put forth a resolution that is the opposite of civility and transparency--indeed, a total contradiction of the way they pledged to conduct business. For the first time in the history of this body, Madam Speaker, the Democrats have included closed rules governing future debate in the House rules package, and have even gone so far as to prevent the Rules Committee from meeting to deliberate these rules or the larger rules package. But they did not stop there, Madam Speaker. After promising an open and fair process, the Democrats have allowed just 10 minutes of debate--that's 5 minutes per side--on Title V of this resolution. This is no small measure, Madam Speaker. Included in Title V are closed rules governing debate on stem-cell research, the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, the cost of prescription drugs, and the federal minimum wage. Certainly the American people expect a debate of ideas and the proper congressional process for some of the most important issues facing our Nation. Instead, the Democrats will deliver 10 minutes of debate. Further Madam Speaker, Title V of this resolution will prevent the votes of the Rules Committee from being made public. A veil of secrecy will fall over this critical committee they now control. This is not the transparency and accountability in our political process the Democrats have promised. So, Madam Speaker, it appears the new age of the Democrat majority will unfortunately not live up to its much-hyped billing. Instead of more openness, fairness, and transparency, the Democrats have revealed the hypocritical nature of their disingenuous promises with their very first piece of legislation. Reneging on their campaign promises in the opening hours of this session is no way to build the spirit of trust and cooperation across the aisle. Madam Speaker, I hope for the sake of the American people that the Democrats start adhering to their pre-election rhetoric and conduct the business of this body in a civilized manner.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to also commend the majority in regard to title III and the overall civility tone as it pertains, of course, to conference committees and having the opportunity for Members of the minority conference team to be present, not to have things added at the last minute after all the conferees signatories have read the report and designate it as complete and then add something at the midnight hour. All of these things are good. I was in the Georgia State Senate in the minority, and I remember the Democratic president of the senate appointing me to my first conference committee. I was thrilled. It was an issue on which I had worked very hard with the majority, and I couldn't understand why I was never called to a conference committee. And then at the sine die hour, all of a sudden this conference report was stuck under my nose and asked for my signature without even reading it, and I was absolutely appalled at that. So I commend the majority for wanting to clean that up, and I support it. But I agree with my former chairman, now ranking member, of the Rules Committee in regard to the argument that was proffered just a minute ago that it doesn't really go quite far enough. But let me spend a little time continuing to make the point that he just made in regard to this issue of holding votes open. Now, during the last 2 years, during almost the entire 109th Congress, after we passed an historic prescription drug benefit for 38 million seniors who had been waiting for 45 years because the now majority, when they were in control, could never deliver on that promise, all we heard for 2 years were these complaints of, well, you held the vote open 3 hours and 28 minutes. You were breaking arms of a former Member from Michigan, Mr. Smith, and others, and it was inappropriate, how appalling that was. And now maybe you are right. Maybe holding the vote open for that purpose is inappropriate when the concerns of our constituents might be that when a Member in good conscience is opposed or in favor of a particular controversial piece of legislation and his or her vote is not going your way and so you get him in a corner or a back room and say, hey, what can we do for you? Or maybe what can we do to you if you don't vote with us? Like removing you, a good productive Member, from a certain select committee, or maybe we promise to put you, who is not quite qualified, on a good select committee that you have been wanting and pushing for for a number of years, and all of a sudden you grant them some earmark that is absolutely egregious, maybe almost as bad as the ``bridge to nowhere.'' So I would say to my friends in the majority, why the modifier ``sole'' purpose? If you really believe this, as the gentleman from California just pointed out, take out that modifier. Let us not hold votes open beyond 15 minutes for the purpose of breaking an arm and trying to change someone's mind when they in good conscience have had plenty of time to consider the bill, to think about it, indeed, maybe even pray about it. I think it is inappropriate, and I agree with you. But let's get serious about this. Let's make sure we really change it and it is not just some window dressing to kind of make your argument that you have been trying to make over the last 2 years. Let us take out the modifier, close the loophole, get serious about this, and that is real reform.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank my colleague from Georgia (Dr. Price) for yielding, and I thank my friend from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the two co-authors of the minority bill of rights. I am a proud co-sponsor of that, and I am proud of their ethics in regard to that. And also, Mr. Speaker, let it be known to our colleagues that this Official Truth Squad of the former freshman Members, now sophomore Members, this is not something they just dreamed up tonight. This is something that they have been doing for the entire 109th Congress and putting some sunshine out there on a lot of these issues and shining that light of day, and this is, of course, part of a continuing process. Dr. Price and Mr. McHenry are exactly right; I was enjoying very much being on that select powerful, powerful Rules Committee, and had that opportunity to go home and tell the folks back home that I am a member of the powerful Rules Committee. And as a member, many times I had an opportunity to hear the minority, the current chairman, Ms. Slaughter, the vice chairman, Mr. McGovern, the senior members, Mr. Hastings and Ms. Matsui, talk about the process and talk about this idea, the appalling idea of a closed rule as Congressman Price points out, and what they are doing in this rules of the House package that they are sort of forcing upon us in asking us to vote on with much less than 24- hour notice. Just listen to some of the quotes of the former four minority members of the Rules Committee who are now running the show and driving this package that contains not one significant piece of legislation, but five pieces of legislation, including the minimum wage bill, the stem cell research bill, which indeed is truly life and death issues, the 9/ 11 Commission Report, completing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I mean, these are not naming of post offices, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. We all know that and we know the significance. But listen to what my colleagues would say and did say many times in regard to one piece of legislation. First of all, let me quote Ms. Slaughter: ``If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule, Mr. Speaker, not just appropriations bills which are already restricted. An open process should be the norm and not the exception.'' This is from the Congressional Record of June 14, 2005. Listen to what my good friend, Mr. McGovern, had to say on September 28, 2006: ``If the Republican leadership does not agree with the bipartisan substitute, then they should defeat it on the House floor after a full and open debate. Instead, they cower behind procedural tricks, parliamentary sleight of hand and closed rules. No wonder the American people are disgusted with Congress. If my Republican friends want this trend of closed rules, of no amendments, of no democracy in the House to continue, then by all means vote for this rule. Just go along to get along. But if you believe, as I do, that the monopoly on good ideas is not held by a few members of the leadership in a closed room, then vote 'no.' Have the guts to vote `no.' '' That was Representative Jim McGovern. Listen to what our good friend, a senior member on the Rules Committee, Mr. Alcee Hastings, had to say on September 28, 2006: ``I have said it before: the way the majority runs the House is shameful. It is hypocritical, it is un-American, it is undemocratic, and it happens every single day that we have a closed rule, and in other circumstances as well.'' He goes on to say ``closed rules are an affront to our democracy. We should stop it now. My outrage and the outrage of all on this side is as much about process as it is about policy. Pure partisan politics never produces sound public policy.'' Congressional Record, July 12, 2005. Finally, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Matsui: ``The American people want to hear practical, well-thought ideas from their elected representatives. Today we could have had that honest, engaged and realistic debate. These proposals and ideas deserve to come to the floor. They deserve to be debated, and they deserve a vote. Unfortunately, under the rule reported out, this will not happen. Instead, we will have a gripping session that yields no results. Congress is part of this government. In fulfillment of its responsibilities, this House should reject this rule and bring real policy to the floor.'' Congressional Record, June 15, 2006. Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but I think you get my drift. They are doing exactly what they railed against us about. The righteous indignation that we heard on a continuing basis in the Rules Committee, and here they come with the rules of the House, and they include in it five pieces of legislation with no rule whatsoever. What do we get? A motion to recommit.

Mr. GINGREY. I think the gentlewoman from Tennessee is absolutely correct on that.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding and giving me an opportunity to talk about that a little bit because at the beginning of my remarks, I talked about the powerful Rules Committee. And, Mr. Speaker, it is a powerful Rules Committee in that you decide how long you can talk on an issue. That is, you limit the time of debate. You have the power to make amendments in order to give a Member on either side of the aisle, majority or minority, an opportunity to come and talk about their amendment on the floor. They may get beat 434-1, but they have that opportunity. As an all powerful member of the Rules Committee, as Representative Price was just saying, all of a sudden, in this rules package, they are saying that one of these all powerful members can make these votes, can set this time of debate, can deny the amendment opportunity for Members on either side of the aisle and then not take a public vote, not take a roll call vote, and not go home and face their constituents, these all powerful members of the Rules Committee, not answer to their constituents for why they denied maybe a Member of their own party a good idea to debate on the House floor, their body. And I am going to tell you the rhetorical question Dr. Price asked, was why would this new majority do this? I can offer a suggestion. They now, of course, have nine members. The four that were in the minority are now the majority including the chairman of the Rules Committee and the vice chairman of the Rules Committee, but they also have an additional five seats, which they are filling with some of their newly elected freshmen Democrats who can go home in these marginal districts, these red Bush districts, if you will, and say that I am an all powerful member of the Rules Committee, re-elect me, but yet not have to answer for these difficult votes that they took probably in opposition to what their constituents would want them to do. So I thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain the rhetorical question of why they might want to do that.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I was surprised when reading title II of this resolution, as it looks conspicuously like the ethics package passed by the Republican majority last Congress; the ethics package that only eight Democrats voted to support. I suspect today more than eight Democrats will finally agree with the Republicans that meaningful ethics reform is a priority of the American people. In fact, the most obvious change in the Democratic package is the overly partisan and adversarial tone, adding headlines like ``Ending the K Street Project'' to language that was included in the Republican legislation. And for what purpose other than a partisan poke in the minority's eye? Democrats campaigned on the promise of a more open and inclusive government, assuring us of their bipartisan intentions. Well, today, on the first day of the 110th, that promise has been broken. Indeed, it has been smashed. Additionally, as the focus of title II is on fostering a spirit of civility, I find it particularly troubling that the Democrats have decided to allow only 10 minutes of debate, 5 minutes on each side, on title V of this resolution, which we will take up tomorrow. During this brief 10 minutes of debate, we will dramatically change the way the Rules Committee does business and outline the process by which five bills, including stem cell research, the 9/11 Commission recommendation, and minimum wage legislation will be considered. That is not even 2 minutes per proposal. So this is hardly, Mr. Speaker, the tone of civility my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are promising to foster in the 110th Congress. The American people and the Members of this body expect more from the Democrats. Their false promises of bringing a new age of bipartisanship and transparency to the halls of this Congress have clearly not materialized, despite the insistence on this by my former colleague, Mr. McGovern, while a minority member of the Rules Committee who stated, on September 28, 2006, while discussing the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, and I quote, ``If my Republican friends want that trend of closed rules and no amendments, of no democracy in the House to continue, then, by all means, vote for this. Just go along to get along. But if you believe, as I do, that the monopoly on good ideas is not held by a few members of the leadership in a closed room, then vote ``no.'' Have the guts to vote ``no.'' End quote. Mr. Speaker, I know why the Democratic leadership is trying to limit debate on these liberal bills, but the American people deserve to have a voice in this process, the voice of their elected representatives. Today, it is clear we have been denied that voice.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the former chairman of the Rules Committee, my colleague from California, and also congratulate the new chairman of the Rules Committee, our friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter). I just want to point out to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the gentleman that just spoke, this ethics reform package, which we are not opposed to in the totality of it, but many, if not most of these provisions, Madam Speaker, were a part of H.R. 4975, the Republican ethics reform package which we passed in this House in May of this past year with only eight, count them, Madam Speaker, eight votes from the other side. There was total opposition to everything that we wanted to do in regard to ethics reform. I will remind my colleagues in regard to the so-called K Street Project, that very provision, that is, Members not being able to put pressure on companies in regard to hiring practices, in regard to granting of any legislative favors, was part of that package. But yet our colleagues in the majority party now want to come forward and say ``the K Street Project.'' Now, where is the sense of fairness and fair play and bipartisanship in sticking it in the eye of the new minority, when we tried to change that very thing that they voted against? I would say furthermore in regard to this overall package of rules, what is this business about not holding a vote open for the sole purpose of changing a vote? If that is in fact a good policy, not being able to do that, and I tend to agree with the new majority that we shouldn't be able to break people's arms with favors for earmarks or special committee assignments which may not be appropriate, then why use the word ``sole?'' Putting in ``sole purpose'' would allow them or anybody to lock a Member in the bathroom and say we are holding the vote open because they are stuck in traffic. So I would suggest let's eliminate ``sole'' and say for the purpose of pressuring a Member to change their vote against their will. Last and not least, and maybe the chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, can address this point of this unbelievable idea that members of the Rules Committee, the new members, maybe to protect the freshman members, are not allowed to have a roll call vote in the light of day.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1099 provides for the disposition of the Senate amendment to H.R. 6111. It makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying this resolution. This resolution waives all points of order against the motion and it provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Finally, it provides one motion to amend which shall be separately debatable for 5 minutes by the proponent and 5 minutes by an opponent. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1099 and the underlying bill, H.R. 6111, which is entitled the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. Madam Speaker, I also rise today for what will likely be my last time managing a rule, at least perhaps until the 111th Congress. I would like to briefly take this opportunity to thank Speaker Hastert for allowing me to serve on this prestigious Rules Committee and also I would like to thank Chairman Dreier for his stewardship of the committee in addition to the committee staff who have been there each and every step of the way to assist me and my staff. It has truly been an honor to serve with my colleagues on the Rules Committee and I feel blessed for having had this opportunity to work with all the members, Republicans and Democrats, of this great committee. Madam Speaker, from the extension of expiring tax credits and the strengthening of health savings accounts, to the exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf and an increase in payments for physician services, this bill provides the Congress with an opportunity to debate and pass a vast array of good policy initiatives. I know there are some who do not agree with the legislative agenda in the closing days of the 109th Congress. Indeed, most on the other side of the aisle have opposed the majority agenda every step of the way, perhaps so they could use the soundbite that this is a do-nothing Congress. However, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is a crucial piece of legislation that must be passed for the sake of taxpayers and their families This bill demonstrates our commitment to returning more money to the taxpayers on top of creating more incentives for economic growth, innovation and entrepreneurship. Madam Speaker, at the end of last year and at the close of this current year, many important tax provisions and incentives will expire, thereby forcing hardworking Americans and their families to shell out more of their hard-earned money to the Federal Government. This bill will extend these expiring provisions through 2007, and it demonstrates our commitment to the American taxpayer and our commitment to fostering entrepreneurship and economic growth. Specifically, this bill provides teachers with an important and a well-deserved deduction for higher education expenses as well as a deduction for their out-of-pocket classroom expenditures on behalf of their pupils. Our teachers should not be punished by the Tax Code for investing in their students and improving the quality of education in the classroom. Also, this bill strengthens our rural communities by extending a new markets tax credit to help foster new industries and diversify our local economies. Additionally, the bill extends the State and local sales tax deduction. This is most important in those States which have no income tax to deduct, but they are burdened with very substantial sales tax levies. Madam Speaker, this legislation also extends the research and development tax credit. Technological innovation is absolutely vital to America's continued economic growth and prosperity. Without investment in research and development, all innovation and growth would come to a screeching halt, with catastrophic effects on our economy as we continue the fight to try and compete globally. We must do everything that we can to help incentivize research and development so that we keep the United States a leader in business and technological innovation. Additionally, this bill also extends the welfare-to-work tax credit and the work opportunity tax credit, creating more chances to put people to work and further reduce the Federal welfare rolls. Recognizing our need to reduce energy costs and maximize energy efficiency, this bill also extends various energy tax credits for energy efficient homes and businesses, for methanol and ethanol fuel, and for businesses that produce electricity from solar energy, fuel cells or microturbines. Also, the underlying legislation provides for the exploration, the development and production activities for mineral resources in the OCS, Outer Continental Shelf. In February of 2006, the Department of Interior released a comprehensive inventory of OCS resources, estimating approximately 8.5 billion barrels of oil and 29.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Madam Speaker, the combination of energy-efficient tax incentives and increased domestic energy production are integral to reducing our dependence on foreign energy as well as finding new and cleaner ways to produce and use energy. I don't know whether the Iraqi Study Group included this as part of their 79 recommendations, but if they didn't, make this No. 80. This bill also contains many important bipartisan health care provisions which represent the culmination of many hardworking hours spent by our committee chairs and our leadership on both sides of the aisle, in both chambers. The final product is one that communicates to the American people that Congress is dedicated to addressing the problems in our health care delivery system. First and foremost, this legislation reverses the scheduled 5.1 percent cut to physician's reimbursements for services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. In 1997, Congress established this sustainable growth rate formula in an attempt to control part B utilization in the Medicare program by reducing physician fees. Unfortunately, the formula is so inherently flawed and it is estimated that physician reimbursement in the Medicare program will continue to decrease into the foreseeable future. In fact, MedPAC, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, has reported that physician payments are expected to be cut by a total of 37 percent over the next 9 years under this SGR formula. With the reality of the impending retirement of the baby boomer generation, the already strained Medicare program will reach a crisis state. By reversing this scheduled cut for one year, 2007, this legislation takes a step in the right direction to protect access to quality health care for our seniors. To state it simply, as a result of these changes, primary care and other physician specialists will be there when our seniors need them. Madam Speaker, this legislation also includes very important and helpful revisions to current law in regards to health savings accounts. These changes are just another example of the forward-thinking ideas that are needed to reform our health care system. This bill provides more flexibility to individuals by allowing them to roll over assets from flexible health spending accounts and health reimbursement arrangements into health savings accounts. Health savings accounts are growing in popularity among employers and employees, and when these accounts are coupled with a high deductible catastrophic health plan, they serve as an all-encompassing insurance solution for individuals of all ages and at all stages of life. America's Health Insurance Plans conducted a study earlier this year that showed that over 30 percent of individuals enrolled in HSAs were previously uninsured. It also showed that one-third of purchasers had incomes of $50,000 or less. This really debunks the naysayers' claim that this choice, this health savings account option, benefits only the wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth, Madam Speaker. By tearing through the red tape and allowing people to consolidate and transfer their accounts into the increasingly popular HSAs, more consumers will have access to these insurance plans, putting themselves in the driver's seat of their health care decisions. And when they have skin in the game, both figuratively and literally, they will choose the best and most effective choice from the health care menu. Madam Speaker, the list goes on as to what this legislation does for health care in America. From ensuring doctors are reimbursed for using the latest treatment therapy for prostate cancer, to extending the therapy caps exception process for an additional year, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 continues the much-needed reform of our health care system, and this Republican-led Congress spearheaded this over the last years With that, Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. My able staff has just presented me with some fairly interesting statistics. I just said in my previous remarks that the vote on the Senate side was 71-25. Included in the 71 ``yea'' vote for this exploration off the gulf coast were 17 Democrats. The interesting thing about this is one of those is the incoming majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Senator Clinton from New York, a Senator of some prominence in a neighboring State to Massachusetts, and last, but not least, Senator Nelson from the great State of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute in response to the gentleman from Florida. I'm sure the gentleman from Florida had a number of occasions over the last year to give that speech throughout the State of Florida, and I appreciate his position on this issue. But I want to point out to him that of the Gulf Coast States, those four States of Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, we have seven Republican Senators, and that we have three Republican Governors, three out of four. Seven out of eight. But when this bill was debated in the Senate, the vote was 71-25, and I remind the gentleman from Florida that there are only 55 Republican Senators in the other body. I can only say that Governor Blanco and Senator Landrieu must be awfully persuasive. This was a strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and I would guess it will have strong bipartisan support, including these provisions in regard to gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It doesn't involve Florida or California Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say to my friend from Massachusetts as he bemoans the provision in the bill regarding the provisions that allow for expansion of offshore exploration of natural gas off of the gulf coast States, he is right. In this body, we have tried to be more comprehensive. That is no reason to oppose what little bit of agreement that we could get from the Senate in regard to an attempt at a comprehensive energy provision. Because of parochial opposition, we were not able to do the same thing off the coast of Florida and California. I indeed and many on my side of the aisle were in favor of that and a more comprehensive, expanded opportunity for domestic production. And another example I want to point out particularly for the gentleman from Massachusetts, there was a very interesting project off the coast of his State called Cape Wind that would have produced a tremendous amount of energy in the cleanest of clean ways, renewable energy, in that Cape Wind project, but it was parochial opposition from the Members of Congress and possibly the State legislature in the State of Massachusetts that did not permit that project to go forward. So we have to deal with those. It is understandable, we can understand the opposition even though passage would be for the greater good of the entire country, but we do what we can do. There are very, very many energy provisions in this bill, a lot of tax credits to try to incentivize the use of cellulosity of products and biofuel to produce methanol and ethanol. And so I think we have a very good, comprehensive project here. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself 30 seconds before yielding to the gentlewoman from North Carolina just in response to my good friend from New Jersey. What a welcome relief to hear him say that as they ascend to the majority in the 110th Congress that he is going to fix permanently this physician shortfall. As I said in my opening remarks, we are estimated by MedPAC that over the next several years we are going to have a 37 percent decrease in physician payments to permanently fix, CBO and OMB estimates, a $150 to $200 billion cost over 10 years. So it will be interesting to see how our friends on the other side of the aisle pay for that, but I am glad that they are going to step forward to the challenge. At this point I want to yield to my good friend from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for 2 minutes.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 1099.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend Jim McGovern for those kind remarks. The feeling is indeed mutual. I certainly have enjoyed serving with him and all the members of the Rules Committee on both sides of the aisle, and I thank him for his kind remarks. General Leave

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. She started her discussion by saying that this bill has kind of been rushed through in the dark of night and there hasn't been an opportunity to study the details of the bill. But as a hardworking Member of this body, the gentlewoman from Texas clearly has had sufficient time to look at all those provisions, that litany of provisions, those line items that she went through and endorsed wholeheartedly because of the compassion that she has got in regard to the education of our children and public schools, the provisions in there that help to continue to rebuild the Gulf Coast States, one of which of course is her great State of Texas, and what that expanded ability to obtain natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico, what that means to the State of Texas and Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. So, while she was decrying that the bill was rushed through and she doesn't understand it, I am glad to know that she fully understands it and endorses it. And I guess if she had more time she would have gone on and listed some other provisions that she is in favor of, and I thank her for that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1099 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of the importance of the underlying bill. I do want to take this opportunity in closing to recognize the hard work and efforts of Chairman Thomas and Chairman Barton, as well as their respective committees, for the final product that we have before us today. Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and thank Chairman Thomas for his decades of service to this House and the people of his district, as well as Americans all across this Nation. Bill Thomas, a brilliant professor from Bakersfield, has truly been a leader across the board, and his expertise and devotion of 28 years of service across this country will truly be missed. Mr. Speaker, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is a very important piece of legislation that positively impacts each and every American by fostering economic growth, driving innovation, increasing our energy supply, and improving the quality of health care in this country. As the 109th Congress draws to a close, and the minority prepares to become the majority, I believe that we must work together to produce legislation like this that recognizes the fact that when the government gets out of the way, Americans can do what they do best, and that is what is best for America. I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Barton for giving me an opportunity. I hope we can work out with the other side, and of course, they are doing the due diligence they should do in watching in these waning hours, that as we approach sine die to look out for any mischief, but I think as Representative Terry described, this is a very good piece of legislation that was added to an outstanding piece of legislation, the PREEMIE Act. I am standing to support the PREEMIE Act, not the additions, but hopefully, like I say, the concerns can be allayed and we can work this out. But I am the granddad of premature, indeed immature, infants that were born at 26 weeks, weighing 1.12 ounces. They are 9-year-olds today. My daughter is on the board of directors of the March of Dimes of the State of Georgia and has worked very hard and asked me to support this bill. As Chairman Barton says, this is the number one piece of legislation for the national March of Dimes, and I would really hate to see this great bill go down sine die because of some additions to it, but hopefully, those will be accepted by the other side, and I support the bill. I encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Stan Wilkins of Cartersville, Georgia, a minister, teacher and friend to so many in our community. Dr. Wilkins passed away last week at the age of 53. While his celebrated life was certainly too short, his accomplishments as a Baptist preacher and community advocate will long be remembered. Dr. Wilkins was only 17 years old when he answered the call to the ministry, and in the next 18 years as a pastor, most recently at Cartersville First Baptist Church, he spread his passion for education and a firm commitment for fulfilling the spiritual needs of his congregation. Dr. Wilkins also was deeply involved in the Cartersville community, serving as a member of the Bartow County Rotary Club, the United Way Allocations Board and the Good Neighbor Homeless Shelter Board. Indeed, everyone whose life was touched by Dr. Wilkins is indebted to his enthusiasm for service and his outreach for education. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in honoring the memory of Stan Wilkins, an outstanding member of the Cartersville community.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I also thank my friend from New Jersey for his support. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 934, a resolution that supports the goals and ideals of a Plan Ahead with an Advance Directive Week. This resolution is supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. It is endorsed by the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, and it is backed by the Cobb County Medical Society in Georgia, and commended to me by my friend and colleague, child psychiatrist Dr. Durk Huttinback. As a physician for nearly 30 years, I wholeheartedly believe in executing advance directives. Every individual in this country, in every stage of life, should have conversations with their families, friends and loved ones regarding their wishes as they pertain to end- of-life care. Advance directives help clarify the desire of individuals to their health care providers, their care givers and family members during these difficult and trying times. Advance directives are valuable tools to help communicate wishes about future medical care. Thoughtfully prepared advance directives can ease the burden on those who must make health care decisions for us. This resolution encourages all Americans to set aside time for what may very well be one of the most important conversations a family can ever have. Giving advanced direction to those who are providing your medical care and explaining to your loved ones your wishes are essential ways to ensure that these wishes are fulfilled if those painful times present themselves and communication is not possible. Mr. Speaker, I believe advance directives are a great avenue for facilitating these vitally important conversations, and therefore I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution. The Federal Government can encourage the American people to have these conversations and take these important actions. By passing this resolution, groups like the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, as well as hospitals and nursing homes around the country can use this momentum to intensify the work they already are doing to notify and educate the American public on the importance of advance directives. Advance directives are available to individuals through many different avenues. Each State government has a medical power of attorney form that a citizen can fill out and have witnessed. This then authorizes the appointed agent to make health care decisions on that individual's behalf. In addition to State government and public health departments, there are many organizations and hospitals around the country that have advance directives available for patients and loved ones who may find themselves facing these tough decisions. So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it enough. This resolution simply encourages everyone to take a moment and discuss with their loved ones what their wishes would be in a health care situation where they are unable to communicate. I encourage my colleagues to please take this opportunity to support these many fine organizations and institutions around the country who work tirelessly to support the simple goals of education and awareness. In addition and perhaps most importantly, this is a chance to take a moment and do what is in the best interest of patients and families in our great country. Please join me in supporting House Resolution 934.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Chairman Deal from Georgia, for yielding. This slow-talking Georgia physician can't say a whole lot in a minute, but I hope my words will strike a nerve. Just as the author's poster showed the striking of many nerves in this procedure called late-term abortion on these infants, the youngest of our children, I want to just relay to my colleagues an experience, a life-changing experience, if you will. We have twin granddaughters, identical twin granddaughters, born at 26 weeks. They will be soon celebrating their 10th birthday. So we watched them for 80 days in the neonatal intensive care nursery, and the neonatalogist would come by every day and say we are not going to stick their heel again today because it is too painful and we are going to make sure that we only draw blood when it is absolutely necessary. And I, as a physician, having delivered many of these premature, immature male infants, offer anesthesia before a circumcision procedure. It is required as part of an informed consent. So this is what this bill is about. It is informed consent carried to its logical extent, and it is an act of compassion. I commend the gentleman for the bill because this is simply trying to make sure that the informed consent is there. And even the National Abortion Rights League does not oppose this bill, and I commend them for that. I support wholeheartedly the legislation, and I commend Representative Smith for this bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, and Dr. Price, thank you for giving me the opportunity to weigh in on this. I appreciate Representative, Doctor Price, leading this hour. It is such an important issue and time, of course, is of the essence. The physicians, the chart that Dr. Price is showing, is a clear indication that, as he points out, Mr. Speaker, the cost of doing business, in this instance, the business of providing medical care to our seniors especially, continues to go up, as does the cost of doing business in any other profession. Yet the reimbursement is not even staying level. Our physicians, our providers, are not just running in place, they are losing ground each and every year, and that therefore the need is to try to fix this ultimately on a permanent basis by eliminating this flawed formula, this so-called SGR way of reimbursing our providers. But at this point we have to do something about the scheduled 5.1 percent decrease update, a loss of reimbursement for the fiscal year, or calendar year 2007. And we have a very short period of time to do this. Dr. Price and Dr. Boustany and Dr. Burgess and the other physicians, medical and dental, doctors in this House of Representatives, hopefully on both sides of the aisle, understand the urgency of this. It is not about necessarily boosting the income of any of our providers, although those who practice the specialty of primary care, our pediatricians, our family practitioners, our general internists, their income is certainly not extravagant by any stretch of the imagination. But it is really about, and I am sure that Dr. Price has already mentioned this, the availability of providers for our seniors. That pressure is getting greater each and every day. Thank God, they are living longer and healthier lives, and I think the Medicare part D provision that we passed in November of 2003 is really adding to that well-being, that our seniors are going to get the benefit of a prescription drug coverage that they never had. But if we don't have any of these primary care physicians willing to accept these patients because we are not paying them enough to even reimburse their practice overhead, much less a small profit margin, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, then the situation gets worse and worse. So thank you to my colleague and friend, Dr. Price. As a physician, Members are here today to try to emphasize the importance to each and every Member, to our leadership. Let's get this done. Let's make sure that we not only mitigate a 5.1 percent loss that is calculated on the basis of this flawed formula, but let's have a positive, a slight increase of maybe 1 percent for all of our providers. Then if voluntary reporting is a part of this bill, then, fine, increase it a little bit more. That is an issue that Dr. Price may want to discuss in more detail as we go forward in the hour. But I want to thank him again for taking the leadership on this issue and giving me an opportunity to weigh in.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn for 5 minutes.