Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker let me just say this. What we are hearing from the opposition over and over again is that this is an attack on Roe v. Wade. It is not an attack on Roe. I will stand here and tell the Members that I think that January 22, 1973, will live on as a day in infamy, and I wish it had never happened, but this is not an attack on Roe v. Wade. This is an attack on one procedure, one abhorrent procedure called partial-birth abortion. The other side wants to say that there is no medical terminology of ``partial-birth abortion.'' It is as much a medical terminology as to say taking somebody's appendix out or a gallbladder out is medical terminology. I do not know what euphemism they want to use for this procedure, but this is a partial-birth abortion. Someone said earlier that it is akin to infanticide. I am not a legal scholar, but to me it is infanticide because when one delivers that human outside the mother's womb, and it has a beating heart, it no longer is a fetus. It is an infant, and if they kill it at that point, and that is what partial-birth abortion is, then that is infanticide. Vote for this conference report, both sides of the aisle.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and giving me an opportunity tonight as a physician Member, and particularly as an OBGYN physician Member, just like my colleague from Texas. During my campaign and these 9 months that I have served in Congress since the election, back in the district probably the most frequent question that I am asked is ``Phil, do you miss it? Do you miss your practice? You gave up a great profession, and you delivered all those babies, over 5,000 during a 27-year career.'' And the answer to them is, of course, I miss it. I miss it tremendously. What a wonderful opportunity and a calling it was to be a physician, and, in particular, to bring life into the world. And I am very proud, of course, to say that in all those 27 years, I have never once performed an abortion. But maybe God, and I guess, Mr. Speaker, it is okay for me to say ``God'' in this Chamber, maybe God had a higher calling for me, wanted me to have an opportunity to do something even greater, Mr. Speaker, than bringing a precious life into the world. One of my supporters during the campaign, when I asked him for help in helping me get elected, he said, ``Phil, I am going to support you if you promise to do one thing. I want you to promise me that you will just do good when you get to the Congress.'' I know now tomorrow, I have an opportunity to do something very good, an opportunity to vote to ban an abominable procedure known as partial- birth abortion, and I do not know how many years of life I have got left, but when I cast that vote tomorrow, and I have that privilege, that honor, that distinction of being one of 535 Members of this Congress out of some 275, 280 million people to make that vote, and when we pass this bill, yet once again for the third time, we have a President in George W. Bush who is committed to finally end this abomination. And I just cannot help but think about all the lives that now I have an opportunity to save forever, and maybe it will be far more than the 5,200 that I have already delivered. We have heard from other Members on this issue and seen the graphic description of this procedure, and I will not go into that again, but I can tell my colleagues as a physician, there is no reason, there is never a reason for the health of the mother to perform an abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy. We are talking about, for those who do not understand trimester, we divide a pregnancy into thirds, but when one gets into that third trimester, we are talking about children, fetuses if they want to call them that, but literally who are 4\1/2\ to 5 pounds, fully capable of life outside the womb. And what people are doing in this procedure is, literally, killing these children, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) indicated, so that they are born dead, and, therefore, are characterized as an abortion, but what they are doing is no different than taking, literally, a child that is lying there in the bassinet at 4\1/2\ pounds and sticking a knife through his chest. It is the exact same effect. One is legal and one is not legal. One is called an abortion. The other is called murder, but there is no difference and make no mistake about it. What the mother is put through in this process of partial-birth abortion in the interest of preserving her health is one of the most dangerous medical procedures one could possibly do. It is something that is so clear in my mind as a physician, as a compassionate human being, that I cannot really understand how anybody could not vote to ban this procedure. And I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, men and women, this is not about Roe v. Wade. This is not even so much pro-life and pro-choice, although the Members of this body that are speaking tonight are passionately pro-life. But this procedure needs to be banned because it is nothing more than murder in a so-called legalized fashion, and it does nothing to protect the health of the mother. So I am very proud to tell my colleagues tonight that my vote will be very strong to ban this abomination known as partial-birth abortion, and I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for giving us this time tonight to talk about this procedure and, specifically, giving me time to address it.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my condolences to the family of Speaker Gingrich. His mother, Kit Gingrich, died Tuesday night in Harrisburg, PA, at the age of 77. Having lost a parent myself, I know personally the pain that such a passing brings. My heart goes out to the speaker and to his siblings, who lost a loving and devoted mother. Speaker Gingrich's sister, Susan Gingrich, said nothing brought her mother more pleasure than her family. One of her proudest moments was watching her son, Newt, sworn in as speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in January 1995. Speaker Gingrich is from Cobb County, which is my home county, and I represent some of the areas that he formerly represented. In Cobb County and throughout Georgia, the speaker remains a beloved and revered figure for his great leadership and his contributions to our state and to our nation. On behalf of the people of Georgia's 11th District, I want to let the Gingrich family know they're in our thoughts and prayers during their time of loss.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has pointed out something that is very important in regard to the fact that Saddam Hussein, at the outset of the conflict, just opened the prison doors. I mean, he just literally opened those prison doors and turned all of these bad guys, and when I say bad guys, I am talking about murderers, onto the streets of Baghdad, particularly in the population center. Now, one can just imagine if we did that in this country. In my home State of Georgia, if we just all of a sudden opened that Federal penitentiary in Atlanta and let all of these people out on the street, the number of attacks, assault, battery, assault with a deadly weapon, murder, rape that would occur in the city of Atlanta, and one can understand. One begins to get, I think, a better picture. But as the gentleman points out, there is not mass chaos in Baghdad. We have, yes, some very difficult things to deal with, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) points out, Mr. Speaker. But let me give my colleagues this information about security and force protection that we have begun to restructure. Coalition forces are on the offensive. They are putting constant pressure on the enemy to disrupt some of these attacks. The coalition forces are also deterring attacks with aggressive patrolling, cordons, and raids based on actionable intelligence. I do not think anything is more important than intelligence, and we are beginning to get that. Currently the Coalition Provisional Authority has actually hired some 32,000 police officers nationwide, and 28,000 are already on the streets. The ultimate goal, by the way, is some 61,000. The police are conducting joint patrols with coalition forces. So this picture that is being painted of mass chaos and everything on the backs of our brave American fighting force, they are doing a great job; they are doing a great job, but they are not doing it completely on their own. As I point out, we are hiring, we are putting Iraqi security forces on the street, and ultimately they will do the job. They will restore order for their own country.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman mentioned about the heroism of our troops and of course some 130,000; and of course, he also pointed out that there are about 25,000 from other countries, indeed some I think the gentleman said maybe 20-or-so other countries, obviously the Brits, the Pols, and that is growing every day; but there is just no question that the commitment of the coalition forces and our own troops is strong. They know what the mission is; and obviously, loved ones back home, spouses, parents, grandparents, they are concerned. Their youngsters, their loved ones are in harm's way. Sure, they want them to come back home and they will come back home; but they know what their mission is, just as our men in World War II and the Korean conflict and other wars that we have been engaged in, they are committed and they will stay the course. I just could not be prouder of the job that they are doing there.

Mr. GINGREY. The gentleman is so right, and of course, people want to say, well, we have not found any weapons of mass destruction, we have not killed or captured Saddam Hussein, so we have not accomplished the mission, the reason we went there; but of course, that was never the reason. As the gentleman from Minnesota points out, the reason for being there was to rid that part of the world of a dictator, of a tyrant; and of course, although we have not found a cache of weapons of mass destruction, in the process of looking, we have certainly found lots of evidence of mass destruction, that is, bodies, mass graves, where Saddam Hussein has murdered his own people. As the gentleman points out, the main purpose is to bring some stability to the Middle East and to that part of the world as we effect this regime change; and make no doubt about it, that mission has been accomplished, and I wanted to just speak a little bit more, continue in that vein on cost, and it is actually estimated that since the Gulf War 10 years ago that the cost of containing Saddam Hussein, and that cost would be continuing if we were not rid of him, that cost over that 10- year period cost Americans at least $30 billion, $30 billion from the end of the Gulf War to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, for the military forces stationed in the Persian Gulf, patrols over the no- fly zone and, of course, associated costs. So just appeasing, or if we want to say containing, Saddam and maintaining the status quo, as so many of our allies of the United Nations, countries who have been our friends and I think will continue to be our friends, that appeasement, that stance of do nothing and taking a chance and letting a sleeping dog lie was costing us, over a 10-year period of time, $30 billion; and those costs were just going to escalate.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think it is important to point out that in Iraq we are not talking about a Third World country. We are talking about what we formerly knew as Mesopotamia, the land between the Tigris and Euphrates. It is one of the oldest nations on the face of the earth and has had beautiful civilizations. This is a situation where a brutal dictator was suppressing, indeed even killing his own people. And not only his own people, but also the neighboring countries, where we have moderate Muslim countries that are friendly and understand the value of life, like Turkey, as an example, and we mentioned Kuwait, and, of course, other neighbors of Saddam Hussein. Under this dictator, this regime and its reign of terror, if you will, these other countries lived in constant fear. And until we rid Iraq of Saddam, there would never be any opportunity for people to feel secure. I am real pleased that the gentleman from South Carolina joined us this evening, and I commend him. He is one of maybe only 25 percent of the Members of Congress who is actually a veteran. I know his three sons also served in the military, and no doubt his teenage boy one day will. And it is really good to hear in these colloquies, and I know the gentleman from Minnesota would agree with me, to hear from people like the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) who knows the military, understands, and who was part of a group that just recently returned from Baghdad, along with the gentleman from Minnesota, and with his own eyes, and your own eyes, saw the tremendous job that our troops, our well-trained troops, our modern technology was able to perform. They were able to inflict maximal damage with minimal collateral damage; with laser precision attacks, protecting as many innocent men, women and children as possible and I commend you.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, pointing out the attack on the U.N. Embassy in Baghdad where most of the deaths were Iraqi citizens, and, of course, the Ambassador from Brazil who had spent his entire professional life in trying to promote humanitarian efforts not just in Iraq, but in many, many countries, and for them to just come in and blow up that U.N. Embassy, and what was the U.N. doing in Baghdad? They were not a fighting force, they were just there for humanitarian reasons, that is all; in fact, so humanitarian that they refused to defend that facility. They did not want it to be guarded. They did not want it to appear that they were in any way there as a fighting force. And look what happened to them. As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) has pointed out, this killing is wanton, it is indiscriminate, and so they are not just attacking our fighting men and women, the United States troops, it is their own people. And it is this reign of terror that we are having to deal with, and it is something that just could not stand, and we had to bring an end to that, and we are going to have to continue. The President has come to the Congress, and I talked earlier about the cost, and trying to put it in the proper perspective. And I think the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) would agree with me, none of us like deficits. We do not like debt. We would love to have a balanced budget. We are all fiscal conservatives, and $87 billion is a lot of money, but let us talk about cost and try to put it in its proper perspective. I have heard this statement: The $87 billion is far more than what we spend on education or other priorities. How can we justify that? That is absolutely wrong. Of course it is a lot of money, but remember this: This is a temporary expenditure. This is an investment in America's security. In contrast, the government's sustained commitments to domestic priorities are dollars spent every year, and they grow over time which appropriately dwarf this incremental cost. Let me just give some comparisons in the fiscal year 2004 budget: Social Security spending, $492 billion in fiscal year 2004 and growing; Medicare, $259 billion; Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, $187 billion; veterans expenditures, $57 billion; education K- 12, $53 billion; the amount of money this country spends and we will be appropriating this year for higher education in the way of Pell grants and student aid loans to our neediest students so they can go to college, $90 billion. Again, $87 billion, and I love to get the input from the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and the gentleman from South Carolina in regard to this overall cost and putting it in the right perspective. We hear over and over that people are more concerned about jobs than they are about homeland security. Members have heard that. We see it on some of the news shows at night. But while jobs, jobs, jobs are very important, and the President has brought to us an economic growth package that is going to grow those jobs, yes, there is a little bit of lag in the policy before those small business men and women can create those jobs, but just keep in mind, and I want to throw this out to put it in the right perspective, on September 11, 2001, some 2,875 men and women that went to work that morning at the Twin Towers at the Trade Center, they had jobs. They had good jobs. They had good jobs with good benefits, and they went to work that day feeling secure. Unfortunately, they were not secure. They no longer have jobs. They no longer are with us. They lost their lives that morning. So while jobs are extremely important, and we need to do everything we can to stimulate this economy, and I commend this President and this administration and this leadership in what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, in trying to grow those jobs, they are not worth a tinker's darn if we cannot assure these workers when they go to work every day that they are going to come home to their loved ones in the evening. So we have to put it in its proper perspective.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk a little bit about the cost. Of course, the President is coming to Congress now and asking for a supplemental appropriation to continue the efforts to win this war on terrorism, not only in Iraq and Baghdad but also in Afghanistan and really in the entire world. We hear a lot of discussion obviously about, well, how can we afford 87 additional billion dollars to continue this effort, and I want to just talk to the gentleman a little bit about that and maybe get into a discussion about cost and putting this in its proper perspective. Obviously, $87 billion is a big number and the question comes up, we hear it all the time, can the United States afford this war and continue to do everything else the President calls for? The answer is yes, in my opinion. We cannot afford not to do what is necessary to win the war against terror, ensure a sustained economic recovery, and secure the homeland. The funding for the war is necessary and significant; but keep in mind, it is a temporary cost, and the cost of fighting the war is well below the cost of previous conflicts. In fact, $87 billion is less than 4 percent of the entire Federal budget. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that people understand the total cost of the 9/11 attack. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in costs just from that act of terrorism, and one study even pegged the cost to our economy of well over $2 trillion. So we know that this effort that we are conducting in Iraq, this war against terrorism there, better there than on our own soil, and our continued expenditures for homeland security, it is a big number but it is small in comparison to what it would cost us and the devastating effect on this economy should we have another 9/11 occur anytime soon. So I think it is real important that we put that in perspective, and I would like for the gentleman to speak to that if he would.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. The gentleman has actually been to Iraq, he has been to Baghdad, and he has seen on the ground many of these things of which we are speaking about tonight. As the gentleman points out, we are not really getting, if you rely just on 24-hour news and the newspapers and coverage, we are not really getting the whole picture, the full picture. I am glad that the gentleman was part of a group that recently was in Iraq who could see for themselves and understand that, as he points out, how much progress is being made. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of discussion, of course, about where the weapons of mass destruction are, where is Saddam Hussein, and, of course, we want answers to those questions. But what the public needs to understand is that progress is definitely being made. Nobody denies the existence of Saddam Hussein, and I think we will ultimately find him. But let me just point out a little bit of information that I think is important on this issue. The Iraq Survey Group is tasked with the search for the weapons of mass destruction. The ISG has between 600 and 800 personnel in Iraq and is headed by former U.N. inspector David Kay. The Iraq Survey Group's highest priority is the hunt for weapons of mass destruction. They have formed quick reaction teams to explore sites indicated by intelligence. The Coalition Provision Authority has actually offered a reward of up to $25 million for the capture of Saddam Hussein. And, of course, this same type of incentive is what led to the finding and the killing of Uday and Qusay. So a lot of progress is being made. We have the inspectors on the ground, and we are following up on every lead. This is just one of the things that I wanted to point out, and the gentleman from Minnesota, of course, knows that because he has been there and he has seen it.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, yes, and I am so glad the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) brought that up, because there are some 240-some hospitals in Iraq, and many of them are being brought back on line, and there is a lot of work that is being done. The gentleman points out the fact that schools are being built, hospitals are being reopened. Much of the infrastructure is markedly improved. Electricity is an example. I think currently there are 3,200 megawatts of electricity being generated. The prewar level was 4,000. The national demand is estimated to be 6,000, but the Coalition Provision Authority plans to reach 4,000 megawatts by August. Baghdad is receiving, the city of Baghdad, 1,200 megawatts. Prewar levels were 2,500, averaging 3 hours on and 3 hours off each day. So we are definitely making progress, as the gentleman points out, and not only in the infrastructure, but, as he also mentions, in health care, and in water as well. Much of Iraq is at prewar water level supply levels now. There is no critical shortage of water.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, not all American heroes make headlines. In fact, most don't. They don't seek the spotlight and they don't need slaps on the back. American heroes go to work every morning, do a good job and provide for their families. We celebrate our heroes on Sept. 11, just as we mourn the innocent victims of that day. Sept. 11 marks a time when Americans grieve and remember our terrible losses. But it's also a time when we celebrate the patriotism, courage and valor of public servants and extraordinary citizens. Heroism manifested itself that day in people from all walks of life. Travelers flying from New Jersey to California said goodbye to their loved ones, prayed together and one said, ``Let's roll!'' Hundreds knowingly sacrificed their lives so that hundreds more in our nation's capital could live. Police and firefighters in New York City ran up the stairs of the twin towers. Looking to save lives, they lost their own. Today, we honor our heroes, those who perished in the line of duty, and those who proudly serve us today. Our U.S. soldiers continue to serve our nation and the world, from the soaring mountains of Afghanistan to the searing deserts of Iraq. Georgians have played a proud and important role in the war on terror, as have the state's military bases such as Fort Benning in the 11th Congressional District. Other men and women in uniform, firefighters and police officers in the 11th District [or insert county here] serve us every day on the homefront. We thank our everyday heroes for all their dedication to their communities and to their country. We honor soldiers, firefighters and police officers today as we remember those who died two years ago.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, as the State of Georgia and indeed the entire Nation suffered the loss of a true hero. Two days ago, at the age of 88, General Ray Davis passed away in a Georgia hospital. Mr. Speaker, after graduating with honors from Georgia Tech with a degree in chemical engineering in 1938, Raymond G. Davis, Sr. joined the Marine Corps with a commission as a second lieutenant. He began a long and distinguished service to our Nation during World War II when he earned a Purple Heart and Navy Cross for actions in the Peleliu and Palau Island operations. In 1952 he was rewarded the Congressional Medal of Honor by President Truman for his part in the Marine Division's historic fight to break out of the Chosin area during the Korean War. Overall during his military career, General Davis was awarded, among others, the Medal of Honor, the Navy Cross, two Distinguished Service Medals, two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, one Bronze Star and one Purple Heart. During the Vietnam conflict, he had various military assignments and duties including Commander of the 3rd Marine Division, for which he was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, as well as three personal medals from the Vietnamese government. He was promoted to lieutenant general shortly after returning from Vietnam and became Commanding General Marine Corps Development and Education Command. President Nixon nominated him for the grade of general and reassigned him to the position of Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps. Upon receiving his fourth star and retiring in 1972, General Davis returned to Georgia and continued to serve his home State and the Nation. He ran the Georgia Chamber of Commerce for several years, attracting business and employment to our great State. Mr. Speaker, our entire Nation benefitted from General Davis's service, and his passing touches us all today. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, three children, seven grandchildren, and two great grandchildren.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today expressing a word of caution to my friends on the other side of the aisle. Recently there have been questionable advertisements on television that present a misleading picture of President Bush. During this year's State of the Union speech President Bush cited intelligence about the possibility that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Africa. To hear the advertisements sponsored by the Democratic National Committee, you would guess President Bush, on a whim, decided to add this language without any consultation or evidence. Let me enlighten my colleagues with the facts by reading our President's entire quote. ``The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'' This is quite different from the half statement, 10 words, that our colleagues in the minority attribute to President Bush. Shame on some of my colleagues for politicizing the war on terrorism for their own political gain and using half-truths while pretending to seek the whole truth. I call for the immediate removal of these blatant misleading ads.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I did not rise to speak on this issue, but I just feel compelled to respond to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are not directly questioning the honesty and truthfulness of President George W. Bush, but yet are doing it secondarily through these so-called ``constituent letters.'' I want to remind them that it is inappropriate, indeed, out of order, for a Member of Congress to speak in this House from this well and to suggest that the President is lying, that the President is untruthful, that the President deceived the American public. Whether they are saying that directly or they are suggesting it through these so-called constituent letters, they are getting very, very close to crossing that line. I want to remind my colleagues that this president was elected, for more than any other reason, because of his honesty and his integrity. The American people trust President Bush and applaud him for what he is doing, what he has done and what he will continue to do to bring peace to the Middle East. Madam Speaker, actually I am rising today to celebrate the 105th anniversary of Bowdon, Georgia, a jewel of a city in the 11th Congressional District which I represent. Bowdon has a proud history that dates back before the official founding of the city. In 1847, Carroll County troops from the Bowdon area, fighting under General Winfield Scott, defeated a large army under Santa Anna at Cerro Gordo, Mexico. The town of Bowdon was originally called Cerro Gordo to commemorate that victory. After Alabama Congressman Franklin Welch Bowdon assisted the town in securing a post office, the citizens honored him by renaming their town Bowdon in 1848. Several years later, in 1853, about 30 local residents selected the present town site. Lots were sold to the highest bidder, with the most expensive lot going for $10.50. The city grew quickly, and by 1855 Bowdon had five stores, several shops, a primary school and a high school. At least one of those original houses in Bowdon still stands today. It was not long before the people of this community chartered Bowdon College in 1856. The college was the fifth chartered in Georgia. The school was a trailblazer in the State, as it was first to educate both men and women. With few resources, but with the commitment of a devoted community, Bowdon College educated thousands of poor but ambitious students until 1936. After the Civil War, Bowdon College was one of five endowed by the State of Georgia to educate wounded and disabled veterans, in 1866 and 1867. The program educated more than 200 veterans. In the early part of the 20th Century, Bowdon flourished with cotton and lumber sales. Soon there was a demand for rail service, and a rail line was completed in 1910. Governor Hoke Smith and Congressman William Charles Adamson, a native of Bowdon, attended the ceremony to celebrate the completion of the line. Bowdon expanded its job-base during the Great Depression, when Bowdon College graduate Warren Palmer Sewell opened a clothing plant in 1932. Warren Sewell Clothing was one of the top ten manufacturers of clothing in the country when he died in 1973. Today, Bowdon remains a proud city in Carroll County. Each August, Bowdon holds its annual Founders Day celebration. This year, the city's 105th anniversary, the celebration will be particularly special.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The manager's amendment to H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act of 2003, makes refinements to the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce on June 10, 2003. This has been a bipartisan bill every step of the way, and I believe it will enjoy broad support among my colleagues in the House. I will not take a great deal of time to describe the amendment in detail since it was drafted in consultation with our Democratic Member, and it contains mostly technical and clarifying changes as recommended by the Department of Education. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to point out a few of the changes of this proposed amendment. As currently drafted, H.R. 2211 authorizes grants to design or redesign teacher preparation programs that are based on rigorous academic content, scientifically based research, and challenging State student academic content standards. This amendment adds language to ensure that teachers in these programs are able to understand the scientifically based research and how to apply that in their classrooms. Under H.R. 2211, each partnership that applies for a grant must include at least a high-quality teacher preparation program at an institution of higher education; second, a school of arts and sciences; third, a high-need local education agency; and, finally, a public or private educational organization. In addition, this legislation requires that at least 50 percent of partnership grant funds be used to ``directly benefit'' partner local education agencies. This provision in the amendment is designed to ensure that each partner local education agency has the ability to influence grant activities, and guarantees that partnership activities focus on the needs of teachers and students in the classroom. My amendment adds a provision to the bill to require that partnership grant applications contain a certification from the partner local educational agencies stating that they will ``directly benefit'' from the proposed grant activities. This amendment ensures that the partnership grant funds are used only to supplement, not to supplant, other Federal, State, and local funds that would otherwise be used for teacher preparation activities. Finally, Mr. Chairman, my amendment ensures that teacher preparation program average raw score data that is reported to the State is also included in the State report card on quality of teacher preparation. This amendment makes common-sense, noncontroversial changes to the legislation, and I ask for my colleagues' support. Support it because it improves the quality of the programs authorized under Title II of the Higher Education Act. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and, pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment No. 1.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for yielding me this time. I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). We have worked very closely, very good together, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) pointed out, in a very bipartisan fashion. And, as the chairman just mentioned, it is not all about funding; it is certainly also about accountability. That is what we are trying to do in the reauthorization of the Title II part of the Higher Education Act: We want to bring additional accountability so that we make sure that no child is left behind by assuring that a qualified teacher is, indeed, in every classroom. H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act of 2003, is a bill that I introduced to help ensure that teacher training programs are producing well-prepared teachers to meet the needs of American students. H.R. 2211 updates the teacher provisions of the Higher Education Act. Specifically, this legislation amends Part A, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants for States and Partnerships, and also Part B, Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology of Title II of the Higher Education Act. In addition, H.R. 2211 authorizes teacher preparation Centers of Excellence for minority-serving institutions. The purposes of the Ready to Teach Act are to increase student academic achievement, elevate the quality of the current and future teaching force by improving the preparation of prospective teachers and enhancing professional development activities; hold teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing highly qualified teachers; and to recruit highly qualified individuals, including minorities and individuals from other occupations, into the teaching force. As in current law, H.R. 2211 authorizes three types of competitive grant programs: State grants, partnership grants, and teacher recruitment grants. State grant funds must be used to reform teacher preparation requirements, coordinate with activities under Title II of No Child Left Behind Act, and ensure that current and future teachers are highly qualified. Programs administered through State grants will focus on effective teacher preparation, placing a renewed emphasis on the skills needed to meet the ``highly qualified'' standard. The partnership grants allow effective partners to join together, combining their strengths and resources to train highly qualified teachers and achieve success in the classroom. The eligible partnerships must include four partners: a high-quality teacher preparation program at an institution of higher education; a college of arts and sciences, presumably at that same institution; a high-need, local educational agency; and a public or private educational organization. It can include additional partners, but it must include those four. These partnerships will require the faculty of the teacher preparation programs to serve with a highly qualified teacher in the classroom, allowing effective in-class experience to ensure that teachers are truly prepared to teach. Among other things, partnership activities will help to ensure that teachers are able to use advanced technology effectively in the classroom, address the needs of students with different learning styles, including students with disabilities, and receive training in methods of improving student behavior in the classroom. As America holds teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing teachers who will ensure that no child is left behind, the need to recruit individuals into the teaching profession will only expand. Teacher recruitment grants will help bring high-quality individuals into teacher programs and ultimately put more highly qualified teachers into the classrooms. H.R. 2211 recognizes the need to ensure that high-need, local educational agencies are able to effectively recruit highly qualified teachers, and will help answer that need by increasing the number of teachers being trained. H.R. 2211 also includes a new program which is based on provisions submitted to the committee by the United Negro College Fund and the Hispanic Education Coalition to authorize teacher preparation Centers of Excellence at minority-serving institutions. In general, the purpose of this program and this amendment brought to us by my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), are to increase teacher recruitment and to make institutional improvements to teacher preparation programs at minority-serving institutions. While current higher education law contains annual reporting and accountability requirements for institutions of higher education, these measures, as the chairman indicated, have proven ineffective in determining the true quality of teacher preparation programs. H.R. 2211 in this reauthorization adds accountability provisions to the Higher Education Act that will strengthen these current law provisions and hold teacher preparation programs accountable for providing accurate and useful information about the quality of their programs. Mr. Chairman, in summary, H.R. 2211 is specifically designed to align teacher preparation programs with the high standards of accountability and results provided for in No Child Left Behind Act. This Ready to Teach Act will help to ensure that program effectiveness can accurately be measured and places a strong focus on the quality of teacher preparation and a renewed emphasis on the skills needed to meet the ``highly qualified'' standard found in the No Child Left Behind Act. In conclusion, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their assistance in moving this bill through the process. It is a bipartisan product, Mr. Chairman, of which we can all be proud. I urge each and every one of my colleagues to support H.R. 2211, the Ready to Teach Act of 2003.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for giving me an opportunity to speak on this issue. I rise in favor of the rule and in favor of this bill. I have delivered probably 5,000 or more babies over a 30-year medical career; but I will be prouder today of this delivery that we are giving to our seniors, that we have promised them for the last 2 years. Finally today that delivery will occur. This will be the best delivery that I have ever given because what we are talking about is not just a prescription drug benefit; we are also talking about modernizing Medicare so that it will not be going bankrupt by the year 2030. With a prescription drug benefit, we will have an opportunity for our seniors to avoid prolonged hospital stays and prolonged nursing home stays, difficult expensive surgery. Let them take those medications early in the disease process so that high blood pressure does not result in a stroke or heart attack or so the diabetes they are suffering with does not end up in them being a dialysis patient. This is a good bill. This is a bill that our leadership is finally going to give to our seniors; and I tell Members this is the day to do it, and this is the finest delivery we can offer to our seniors.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as a physician Member of this body, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. I do not take lightly voting for a Federal program that expends $400 billion of the taxpayers' money. Being responsible with that money is a burden that I take very seriously. As appropriators of the people's revenue, we must assure that each dollar is spent wisely. That is a high hurdle, but I believe the Medicare Modernization Act clears that hurdle. This act is an investment that brings Medicare into the 21st century. We will save money as we expand the focus of Medicare spending to include preventive care. Seniors who take the right drugs at the right time are more likely to stay healthy; and they are less likely to need expensive, prolonged hospitalizations, painful and complicated surgical procedures and, sometimes, yes, extended nursing home stays. For that reason, I do not think that this program will really cost $400 billion over 10 years. It will only cost that much if it does not work. My experience as a physician for more than 28 years teaches that a prescription drug program for preventive care will pay dividends and increase health and a better quality of life. It is true what they say: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And it is a lot less expensive. This Congress has a great opportunity to expand the coverage for seniors, particularly our needy seniors, while, at the same time, strengthening the system so that it will be around to serve the baby boom generation as it moves into retirement. We will serve tomorrow's seniors as we are serving today's. Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle insisted today that this bill could be the death of Medicare. They were even grandstanding around with black arm bands. That is interesting, Mr. Speaker, because their Democratic alternative would cost nearly $1 trillion, threatening to slam the entire Medicare system onto the rocks of financial insolvency long before 2030. The plan that we will vote on tonight provides a good, strong benefit for our seniors; but just as important, it provides a sustainable benefit that will be there for future generations of seniors. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bring Medicare into the 21st century. Vote for the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act tonight and deliver on your promise to our beloved seniors.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for bringing that to our attention because he is so right, and to have someone like the gentleman from Texas who has spent an entire career practicing medicine, being there every day and, of course, as an OB-GYN every night and every weekend as well, he understands the big picture. That is why it is so important to have Members like the gentleman from Texas bringing this information forward. I see the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) has joined us, the former Speaker pro tem of the Assembly in the great State of Florida. I yield to her on this very important subject. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for being with us tonight. (Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and, of course, the gentleman brings up some very good points about other reforms that this Republican majority, this administration and this leadership are going to present to the American public. The gentleman mentions the new and improved medical savings account. These are not for our seniors, and we are here tonight primarily talking about what we are doing to reform and improve Medicare, both the traditional fee-for-service and the Medicare advantage and the enhanced fee-for-service option; but also as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) points out, we are thinking much broader. We are thinking about what we can do for younger workers so they can plan for their future, so they can plan for the day that they become a senior. That is what the gentleman is talking about with regard to medical savings accounts which are so important because so much of the money that is spent on health care in this country today is going toward extended care and skilled nursing facilities as an example, many times after prolonged hospital stays. The current Medicare program has no catastrophic coverage whatsoever. After an individual has spent 60 or 90 or at the very most 120 days in the hospital in any 1one year, there is no coverage. Our seniors have no coverage; and whatever nest egg that mom or dad or grandparents have accumulated it is gone, it is exhausted. In many instances when they have to go to an extended nursing care facility for a prolonged stay those benefits are extremely limited and there is no money left to pay for it. The part paid for by Medicare is very limited. So what happens to these individuals? They do not get thrown out on the street. Thank God, we are more compassionate in this country than that. We would never let that happen. But they become indigent. They literally become indigent. Then they are Medicaid eligible and so much of that Medicaid money which, of course, being a Federal-State cost sharing, in some instances 60-40, maybe 50-50, very expensive, and where are most of the dollars going? They are going to pay those bills in these extended care facilities. The gentleman from Texas is so right. I am so appreciative, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Texas for pointing that out to us. We are doing more than just reforming Medicare for the future and providing a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. We are going to make sure that those who will become our seniors in the future and ad infinitum will have a way to pay for things like extended care insurance. This is so very important and I am so appreciative of the gentleman from Texas for bringing that up.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I must say I absolutely deny being there at the inception of Medicare; maybe it was close, but not at the inception.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), who, of course, talked a lot about the prescription drug benefit and how important a part of this Medicare reform that piece is, and indeed it is. I want to call my colleagues' attention to this poster to my left in regard to, of course, strengthening Medicare. There are some other points that I want to make that I think are extremely important and that the President and the leadership of this Congress know all too well. Of course, my colleague from Pennsylvania was talking about the prescription drug benefit for our seniors, but this plan does so much more than that. So much more than that. The Republican plan preserves Medicare for the future. We all know of the actuarial studies. We know of the bipartisan Commission on Medicare Reform. Everybody knows that if we do not do something in this legislation about preserving Medicare for the future that by the year 2030 the program, particularly the trust fund, the hospital trust fund, will be completely insolvent. Then the other thing about this reform is the very, very important point of giving seniors choices. What this bill will give to our seniors is a choice to remain if they want to remain in traditional Medicare, fee-for-service, something they are comfortable with. If they are not ready for a change, yes, they can remain in traditional Medicare and get the complete prescription drug benefit that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) was talking about. So this is very important. This is not a one-legged or two-legged stool; it is a three-legged approach, and we are going to have a good program for our seniors. Of course the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) was talking about sometimes a senior in his district could not see very well or hear very well or maybe their limbs are aching and they do not get around as well as they used to; but if Members come to my district and my town hall meetings, Members know they are thinking and are smart and understand this issue and want relief and want it now. That is what H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, is going to give to them. Now, let us talk a little bit about some of these seniors. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) did a great job of touching on that and talking about some of the people in his district. Let me point out in this poster, providing for catastrophe, assistance for seniors in need, provisions in this legislation assist seniors facing catastrophic medical costs. Let me give an example of some folks in my district that are facing catastrophic medical costs. Mr. And Mrs. Grady Jenkins are senior citizens who live in Rome, Georgia, in Floyd County, northwest Georgia, the heart of my district. Mr. Jenkins is 79. He is a World War II Navy veteran, and he worked at Georgia Craft, a paper mill. He and his wife have to pay $1,200 a month for their medicine. After they pay for their medicine and their living expenses, they can barely afford to eat. This could easily be a picture of Mr. And Mrs. Grady Jenkins. They are worried because the cost of fuel for heating and air keep rising. They do not know how they are going to make it. Let me give another example, again in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, George and Vera Rohr live in Buchanan in Haralson County. Mr. Rohr is a 72-year-old veteran and a Purple Heart recipient. He worked and retired from Lockheed. They are drawing Social Security, and they have a supplement. Unfortunately, he suffered an aneurysm last year; and with the doctor bills and the medicine they both have to take, they have depleted their savings, and now they are struggling to make ends meet. They go from paycheck to paycheck. She tries to pick up odd jobs when she can just to buy the groceries. Horace Cline was a pharmacist for 49 years in Cave Springs, Georgia. He remembers a time when it only cost 50 cents to fill a prescription. Now he sees antibiotics that cost more than $10 a pill. He does not see how people can afford their medicine. Most of his elderly patients are on a fixed income, and most have three or four prescriptions a day to take. Many people have more than that. The average 75-year-old senior is taking 4\1/2\ prescription medications a day, and many of these do cost $10 a pill. This cannot stand. In his little community, this pharmacist, he hears tragic stories every day of people sacrificing basic needs to buy the drugs they or their spouses need to stay alive. He remembers a little lady that only received $400 a month from her husband's retirement fund. Her prescriptions cost $300 a month, hardly leaving anything for food. He said it is not uncommon for people to ask for a stronger dose of the medicine so they can buy fewer pills and break them in half to be able to afford them. Mr. Speaker, if you have ever tried to break apart one of these pills, let me say it is not easy. It is not easy for some of our weight-lifting friends, much less our senior citizens who are not so strong any more. People are improvising anywhere they can just to be able to afford the medicine and the doctor bills. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to be in this 108th Congress, to be a freshman Member of a great group of men and women. I have great respect for Members on both sides of the aisle. I have a special deep respect for some of my physician colleagues who are Members of the 108th Congress, and one in particular, a freshman like myself who for many years practiced obstetrics and gynecology in Texas. He has only delivered fewer babies than I have because he has not been at it as long as I have. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) to speak on this very important issue.