Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

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

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank so much my colleague from Minnesota, Representative Kline, for dropping by and for pointing out the things that we have been talking about. Quite honestly--and he alluded to the fact, I think, that we are beginning to get a little bit of bipartisanship on this issue. In fact, I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that there would be a colloquy today between Majority Leader Hoyer and the minority whip, Representative Eric Cantor from Virginia. I wanted to hear what Mr. Hoyer might have had to say about this. I've been reading in the newspaper--and maybe some of my colleagues have seen these articles, too--that maybe the Democratic leadership, represented so much so, of course, by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and hopefully by the leader, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Pelosi, would begin to sort of go our way on this. I know a lot of Democratic rank-and-file Members, particularly those, Mr. Speaker, of the conservative wing of the Democratic Caucus--the so-called Blue Dogs--are very concerned about increasing taxes on anybody at a time such as this. As Representative Kline pointed out, the tax increase of letting every one of those marginal rates go back up to the pre-2001 level basically eliminates the 10 percent tax bracket, and it expands the 15 percent tax bracket. I pointed out earlier that it raises the 36 bracket to 39.6, 33 to 36, 28 to 33, and 20 to 28. In addition to that, what is expiring is the Child Tax Credit of $1,000, which will go back to $500, Mr. Speaker. The tax on dividends, which under the current law and enacted in 2003, is 15 percent, but if we let that expire, that tax rate on dividends will go to whatever one's marginal rate is, and if you happen to be at the 39 percent tax rate, that will be the tax on dividends. Many, many of our seniors are relying on dividends--on dividends and their Social Security--as their only sources of income. To tax that at nearly 40 percent, in some cases, is just cruel. It is unconscionable. So, again, I do thank my colleague for weighing in on this; and this current slide, my colleagues, kind of shows that. The blue line on the graph shows the Democrat projection with the stimulus spending that was enacted and passed in February of 2009. So we're talking--what?--a year and a half ago. It was $862 billion, I believe, in that stimulus program that was supposed to get our economy back on track. That money, by the way, was money borrowed--yes, borrowed, in large part, from China and Japan. We hear that concern voiced so often. Yet that's what we did. We borrowed $862 billion, a lot of it from China and Japan, to stimulate our economy. The pledge from the administration, from President Obama and from Congress was that this is what we need. If you pass that, our pledge to the American people is this unemployment rate, which was at 7.6 percent back a year and a half ago, will not get above 8 percent. We will stop this hemorrhaging of jobs by creating all of this spending for shovel- ready projects. I don't know how much of it went to that, but it was probably less than 5 percent of the $862 billion. Here, the graph depicts it. So in the first quarter through the third quarter of 2009, that unemployment rate, which was 7.5 to 7.6 percent, wasn't going to go any higher. This is what the projection was going out to 2013. It was that our unemployment rate, because of the stimulus package, would gradually come back down to traditional levels of 4.5 to 5 percent, which was essentially full employment. But this is what happened, my colleagues. The red line is what happened, unfortunately. And here we are in the third quarter of 2010, and what is our unemployment rate? Darn close to 10 percent. In fact, a couple of quarters ago it was over 10 percent. And as I said earlier about the unemployment rate, it's really worse than 10 percent, because many people have been out there beating the pavement, wearing out that shoe leather trying to find a job for 6 or more months, and they are still unemployed. And a lot of them, unfortunately, have just given up. Many of the jobs that we saw were census workers. That work has been completed, and unfortunately they're back in the ranks of the unemployed. My colleagues, what I've been talking about, of course, in this next slide depicts it--the Bush tax cuts and what to do with them. The first bullet, ``Democrats are poised to let the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire at the end of this year.'' The effect of that would be a $3.8 trillion tax increase that will affect every American who pays income taxes. Unfortunately, only about 53 percent of Americans do pay income taxes, and that's part of our problem. But how in the world could we do this to the hardworking, tax-paying people? Go back to that first slide of the bull in the China shop. Colleagues, that's what we're talking about. You break a lot of dishes when you raise taxes $3.8 trillion over a 10-year period of time. And answer this question for me--rhetorically, of course. What tax increase ever created a job? I don't think one ever did, and I don't think one ever will. I spoke a little earlier about the corporate tax rate. Why is our corporate tax rate higher than--I don't know the total number of countries that we have here listed along the X-axis, but it's about 20, 25--Iceland, Ireland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Turkey, Switzerland, Korea, and on and on and on? And our corporate tax rate, effective, is almost 39 percent. That's the green column. Only Japan, at 40 percent, has a higher corporate tax rate than the United States. That makes no sense. We can't compete in the global economy with taxes like that. I had talked a little earlier about the different tax rates and what will happen if we let the tax cuts, the lower rates, expire and we go back to those rates prior to 2001. I talked about dividends going from a 15 percent rate to, in some cases, a 39.6 rate. I didn't mention capital gains, but capital gains are now at 15 percent. That will go back up to 20 percent. And we, of course, talked about ordinary income and how those tax rates will go up for every marginal level. We mentioned the Child Tax Credit of $1,000 per child, which will go back to $500 per child. I did not mention, but it's on this slide. I didn't talk about the marriage tax penalty, which under the current law had been eliminated, but starting January 1 of 2011, that marriage tax penalty kicks back in, costing a couple an additional $595 a year. That might not sound like a lot of money to Members sitting in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, but it's a lot of money for a man and woman in their retirement twilight years on a fixed income. And, of course, I did mention that the lowest tax bracket marginal rate of 10 percent would completely be eliminated. Well, let's get back for a few minutes to what I think we can do in a bipartisan way. This particular slide, Mr. Speaker, says it's the Republican plan. But you know what? I wish I had changed this slide before I got here on the floor this afternoon and scratched that out and put the ``Bipartisan Plan.'' Because other than the point that my people made to me at town hall meetings during the August recess about wanting us to do something about the economy, stop taxing them and regulating them to death, leave them alone, give them the opportunity to show their entrepreneurial skills, they said this, too: Why is it that you men and women in the Congress can never seem to work in a bipartisan way and do something for us, all of you? We love you, Congressman Gingrey, but you're part of the problem, too. You're all worried, it seems to us, about the next election, and you don't seem to be thinking about the next generation. And I had to look them in the eye, eyeball to eyeball, and say, You know what? You're right. And my pledge, if I become part of the majority in 2011, is that we will work in a bipartisan way. And I hope my leadership is listening, and I hope that that will be part of their pledge. So this poster really should scratch out the ``Republican Plan'' and put ``Bipartisan Plan.'' And I don't know why in the world we couldn't all agree on this. And we ought to do it now, not wait to see who's in control. The American people, I don't think--in many instances, they don't care who's in control as long as we're doing the right thing, as long as we are doing the right thing. But this slide says, number one, freeze all of those tax rates for 2 years. We're in a desperate situation. Is that asking too much to not increase the tax burden on the American people and small businesses and corporate America for 2 years? And secondly, cut spending back to 2008 levels. There is a little asterisk, colleagues, on this poster. If you can't see it, I'm going to read it for you: ``If the President is serious about job creation, there's one clear way forward, and that is for us to come together and pass legislation immediately that cuts spending and stops all of the approaching tax hikes.'' The bipartisan plan; that's what we need, Mr. Speaker. That's exactly what we need. That's what the American people are expecting of us. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to shift gears just a little bit because it does pertain to the economy. I want to talk a little bit about illegal immigration. There is a situation in this country that has got to stop, and that is this idea that children born in this country of illegal immigrants are automatically United States citizens. Now, that's based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. I keep the Constitution with me all the time. Representative Fortenberry, Mr. Speaker, was talking about the Constitution, our sacred document, a little bit earlier. But the 14th Amendment was ratified to our Constitution in 1868. There were no immigration laws in 1868. It had nothing to do with illegal immigrants and bestowing citizenship on a child born of illegal immigrants. No. It was all about giving rights, constitutional rights, to former slaves, just as was the 13th Amendment and the 15th Amendment. The 15th Amendment: ``The right of citizens of the United States to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'' The 13th Amendment: ``Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.'' Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. The 14th Amendment says, ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' Illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And the reason I bring this up, Mr. Speaker, is because it costs about $10,000 for every childbirth in this country. When 10 percent of those births are illegal immigrant births, you're talking about close to 400,000 times $10,000, pretty soon you get to about $40 billion worth of cost, something that this country cannot afford. And that is why people are insisting that we abide by our immigration law, not enact new law but just simply abide by what has already passed. It's something that I'm going to continue to talk about. I look forward to having a dialogue with my other colleagues that have been so active and involved in this issue, folks like Representative Gutierrez from the great State of Illinois, and I think we can talk and do this in a bipartisan way and come together, because people want a secure border and they want to abide by the rule of law. And they realize when they are among the 10 percent, Mr. Speaker, who are unemployed, that have been out of work for more than 6 months, and there are 16 million of them, that you can't afford to not have a secure border. You can't afford to have yet another magnet to attract more people to risk their lives trying to come into this country illegally. All of these things are interrelated. We need to be sensible about this, and we need to recognize so many of these problems. Mr. Speaker, again as I said at the beginning of the hour, I appreciate the opportunity that my leadership has given to me to talk to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle about what we can do to restore this economy and have a recovery that is not a jobless recovery, to put people back to work. And it starts with lowering the amount of Federal spending. Can you believe that we are this year going to spend $1.3 trillion more than what we take in in revenue? And we're on the track over the next 10 years to triple our national debt? In fact, it will be by the year 2020, if we continue at this rate, over $20 trillion of debt. That is more than our gross domestic product. So let's draw a line in the sand, let's go back to 2008 spending, that's the least we can do, and let's not raise taxes on anybody. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be joined by my classmate and colleague from the great State of Minnesota, the ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, Representative John Kline. I will gladly yield to Representative Kline.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I'm here to urge our Democratic leaders to listen to the Republican Party, to listen to the Republican Party's bipartisan plan for taking immediate action on our already ailing economy. If we let the Bush tax cuts expire, those tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, Americans nationwide will face the largest tax hike in United States history. Indeed, that tax hike will amount to $3.8 trillion, and this at a time when unemployment hovers at around 10 percent and our national debt has hit an all-time high at $13 trillion--yes, $13 trillion with a ``T,'' an unbelievable amount of debt. We need to freeze Federal spending. We need to cut taxes across the board, for everyone at every marginal tax rate level across the board. The state of the economy today is that 16 million people are unemployed. That equates to a 10 percent unemployment rate. Indeed, it is probably close to 17 percent. Mr. Speaker, if you count people who have just given up, who have been looking over 6 months for a job, there are none to be found, and also the number of people who are employed, yes, but underemployed, it would be close to 17 percent. So, indeed, the Republican Party and our leader says we need to freeze Federal spending, indeed, roll it back to the level of 2008, and cut taxes across the board. And if we don't do that, Mr. Speaker, many companies that might have been in a position to expand and, therefore, put people back to work will choose not to because of the uncertainties associated with these tax hikes as well as other disastrous Democratic policies like ObamaCare. We need to come together, and we need to pass legislation immediately that cuts spending and kills all of the pending tax increases. Mr. Speaker, we just returned to Washington, did we not, after 6 weeks in our districts, all 435 of us? I had many opportunities during that 6-week period of time to meet with my constituents face to face, eyeball to eyeball at town hall meetings. We called them America Speaking Out meetings, wanting the American people to know that at least one party wanted to hear from them, wanted to hear from Main Street, and did not want to force-feed on the American people, on our constituents, some grandiose plan that Members of Congress come up with. God knows that plans that Members of Congress have come up with over the last 4 years have certainly not helped one iota. So I used this opportunity, my colleagues, I used this opportunity to speak to my constituents, but mainly to listen to them and to find out and write it down and bring it back to Washington to share it with my colleagues so we can make a pledge and make a commitment. Indeed, one person, Mr. Speaker, suggested that why don't you call it this time, rather than a Contract with America that we remember from 1994, why don't you call it a Covenant with America, just like the covenant that God had with Moses and the Jewish people, something that is an absolute pledge of your sacred honor. Sacred honor, you heard my friend from Nebraska, Representative Fortenberry just moments ago on the floor, talk about the Constitution, sacred honor and our sacred documents. And I think that is what the American people want. I don't think they will accept anything less. They are tired of the same old same old-- excessive government spending and higher taxes that are making our country look a lot like Greece, Mr. Speaker. So, I'm happy to have this opportunity, under the direction of my leadership, to take this time to talk to my colleagues about what we really need to do and what we really need to do in a bipartisan way. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the approval ratings of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle is 11 percent. People wanted to change 2 years ago. People wanted a change 2 years ago. They made a change, but, indeed, it was not quite the change that they expected. I want to refer my colleagues to this first poster, this first slide that I have here in the way of a cartoon, and hopefully all of you Members in the back of the Chamber can see this. It is a china shop, and it shows this depiction of our President going into the china shop talking to the clerk. And the caption is, as the President is speaking, ``Now, give me one good reason why you're not hiring.'' And of course behind the President are all of these bulls, these bulls in a china shop. This bull of cap and trade, this bull of health care reform, breaking all of the china. Mr. Speaker, to ask the question: Now, give me one good reason why you're not hiring. Well, the American people can give a lot of good reasons why they are not hiring if indeed they have any capital left with which to hire or to expand their business, to increase the square footage, to put in a new product line, and to bring in additional workers for their small business. It is not happening because of bad policy, bad policy coming from inside the Beltway, not bad policy on Main Street. Mr. Speaker, again as I did these town hall meetings, and I guess we did six or eight of them across the 11th Congressional District of northwest Georgia, nine counties that I represent, a great district, and I guess I would not be unique among us to say I think I have the best district of all 435, but I know we all feel that way about our districts. But the people told me, when I asked about the economy, what was concerning them the most, and we discussed the economy, and I asked, Why are we faced with a 10 percent unemployment rate? Why are 16 million people out of work, and why is it getting worse? This is what they said: Excessive taxation; insufficient liquidity, which means they can't borrow any money. The banks are not lending. The small banks are having to set aside money to cover loan loss reserves and to abide by this mark-to-market accounting principle. People who have loans and are making payments on those loans, all of a sudden these loans are called and they have to come in and put up more collateral. And, of course, the regulators are really cracking down to the lending institutions. Poor mom and pop businesses can't borrow any more money. And if they have some money, or maybe there is someone who is unemployed who has a little nest egg who would like nothing better than to finally start that small business that they have wanted to start for years, they are finally almost forced into a situation. There are no jobs out there, so maybe they have $25,000 or $30,000 saved up and they want to start that little restaurant on the corner. They are not going to do it because of economic uncertainty, not knowing, Mr. Speaker, what is coming next that is going to hurt them rather than help them. And the last bullet point on this particular slide, Mr. Speaker: Redtape, government mandates. OSHA. EPA. The new health care law. ObamaCare. The requirements for providing health insurance--and not just any health insurance, but one policy dictated by the Federal Government that these people understand they can't afford to abide by, so they don't start that business. So the unemployment rate, it continues and it gets worse. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this next poster that I want to share with you has a lot of verbiage on it, and I know that it is difficult to read, so I will go through the bullet points with you. This is what it says. The latest Congressional Budget Office, CBO, that's the bipartisan accountants hired by the House of Representatives, the director of course is chosen by the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, but the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office and their economic outlook, the first bullet, this year's deficit is estimated to reach $1.3 trillion. As a share of the overall total economy of this country, the deficit is 9.1 percent, roughly three times the average of the past 40 years. Let me say that again. The deficit for this year, $1.3 trillion, is 9.1 percent of the total economy of the whole country, and that is three times what it has averaged over the last 40 years. Amazing. The second bullet, the debt held by the public, is projected to rise to $9 trillion, or 62 percent of the economy this year, nearly twice the 40 year historical average. Total debt, including borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and other Federal funds, will rise to $13.5 trillion. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the CBO also estimates that economic growth will remain sluggish over the next few years and unemployment will remain unbearably high for years to come. The looming tax increases and health care overhaul both contribute to slower growth and fewer jobs. Colleagues, this next poster that you see basically depicts the slide that I just read to you in regard to the budget doubling and the tripling of the debt held by the public in billions of dollars, and this does not even include the Social Security trust fund that has been raided of about $1.5 trillion that has to be paid back. So, colleagues, as we spend the next couple of weeks here in Washington before we break and go home before these midterm elections, what do we have to do? The President is talking about, and the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, and the leader of the Senate, Senator Harry Reid, are talking about letting the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 remain in place for all taxpayers except those who have an adjusted gross income of $200,000, or $250,000 for a family. These are the very people who create the jobs in this country because many in that category are small business men and women who are not C corporations; they are subchapter S, or they pay their taxes as individuals. If you let those tax rates go from 33 percent to 36 percent or in some cases go from 36 percent to 39.6 percent and you leave the corporate income tax rate at 35 percent--and I have a flyer that I will show you, colleagues, in just a few minutes comparing the corporate tax rate in this country with other industrialized countries across the globe--it's astronomically high. So how do we expect to get out of this deep recession, this economic morass, this high unemployment rate of 16 million-plus unemployed by raising taxes on anybody? It makes absolutely no economic sense. I would urge my colleagues to come together with us in a bipartisan way. Let's do what Leader Boehner has suggested, which is to leave the tax cuts in place for everybody at every marginal rate at least for the next 2 years, and let's cut spending this year to 2008 levels.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the United States Constitution, which has guided our great Nation for 223 years. Constitution Day serves as a reminder that our country is blessed with the fundamental freedoms and liberties that our Founding Fathers laid out for us. The Constitution not only serves as the basis of our laws and helps shape our values as a Nation, but it also outlines the limited role that government should play in our citizens' daily lives. This is something we must remember in light of the many struggles that currently face this country. Madam Speaker, there are those in Congress who try to circumvent the Constitution. So let today be a reminder that the original leaders of our country did not intend for America to be governed by partisan political agendas but by the wishes of the American people.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5282, a bill that would create a Veterans' Curation Program at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to hire veterans and members of the Armed Forces to assist in carrying out curation and historic preservation activities. I commend my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, for his work on this legislation. H.R. 5282 again shows the necessary commitment from the federal government to assist our veterans and military personnel through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. While I am supportive of H.R. 5282, I would be remiss if I did not take a few moments to discuss perhaps the biggest issue for the Corps of Engineers in the State of Georgia--updating the current manuals that affect both the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) and the Alabama- Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) Basins. Over the next 18 months before the court ordered deadline for negotiations to be completed, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida must develop a workable water sharing plan with the resources within these two basins. Madam Speaker, one of the critical aspects of these negotiations will be how Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier are treated. I firmly believe that both of these lakes should be considered water supply lakes for the purposes of serving the local communities. Knowing that the negotiations are ongoing, it is my hope that common ground on the treatment of these lakes will be reached. To that end, I applaud the leadership of both of Georgia Senators-- Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson--on these water issues. Specifically, both Senators have championed the notion of authorizing Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona to be used for water supply and reallocation of storage to meet the current and future needs of the surrounding towns and cities. As for the governors of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, I hope that a compromise including the use of these lakes for water storage and further, that allows them to be part of the water supply for the State of Georgia is on the horizon. Madam Speaker, I am supportive of the efforts of the bill that we have before us and believe that it is another way in which we can help those who have so bravely served our country through the Armed Forces. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 5282.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, although I support incentives to promote energy efficiency as well as the work of contractors across the country who make our homes and businesses more energy efficient, I must rise in opposition to H.R. 4785, the Rural Energy Savings Program Act. During the 6 week August recess, I heard over and over from my constituents in Northwest Georgia that the Federal Government needs to get its fiscal house in order. That is hard to accomplish when--for the first time in the modern era--Congress failed to even adopt a budget blueprint for the fiscal year. Why is it that hardworking families have to make difficult decisions on their personal budgets while Washington can't? The American people deserve better. Mr. Chair, unfortunately, the Democratic Majority just doesn't get it. I find it hard to believe that the message they are receiving from their constituents is much different than what I am hearing. Yet, they don't seem to be listening. At a time where we have amassed a $1.3 trillion deficit for Fiscal Year 2010 alone and we are faced with over $13 trillion in debt, we need to demonstrate fiscal restraint. Instead, H.R. 4785 seeks to spend an additional $5 billion when the American people are begging us to reduce spending. Mr. Chair, I believe that we must take the needed steps to get federal spending under control. The Democratic Majority has clearly demonstrated that it is out of touch with the American people by passing the $862 billion ``Stimulus'' and the $1 trillion ObamaCare bill. H.R. 4785 embodies that same attitude that we must spend our way back to prosperity, when we have seen it fail time after time. Therefore, despite my support for energy efficiency programs and the people who would benefit from this legislation, I urge all of my colleagues to listen to the American people and curb federal spending.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1251, a resolution to recognize and thank the men and women of our Armed Forces that participated in the D-day invasion on June 6, 1944 at Normandy, France during World War II. June 6, 2010, marked the 66th Anniversary of Operation Overlord, the D-day invasion at Normandy. On that fateful day, 160,000 Allied troops--31,000 Americans--landed on a heavily fortified 50-mile stretch of beach at Normandy. General Dwight D. Eisenhower called the operation a crusade in which ``we will accept nothing less than full victory,'' and he was certainly correct in that statement. More than 5,000 ships and 13,000 aircraft supported the D-day invasion, and by day's end on June 6, the Allies gained a foot-hold in Normandy. However, this success bore a heavy cost--more than 9,000 Allied Soldiers were killed or wounded--but more than 100,000 soldiers began the march across Europe to defeat Adolf Hitler. With a deep sense of appreciation, I would like to express my gratitude as well as the gratitude of the people of Georgia's Eleventh Congressional District to the brave individuals who acted heroically on D-day when they landed at Normandy and took control of the Axis opposition, inevitably leading to the end of World War II. I commend the members of our Armed Forces for their leadership and valor in this operation that led to Allied victory and an end to Nazi oppression in Europe. Madam Speaker, let us not forget the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice on D-day and gave their lives for the freedom that we, as Americans, enjoy every single day. The nearly 10,000 graves in Colleville-sur-Mer, the largest United States cemetery in Northern France, appropriately all face west toward the United States, symbolizing our deep appreciation and eternal memory of the heroes that gave their lives for liberty. Indeed, the democracy on display here today in this chamber is a testament to the courage and dedication of the United States Armed Forces. The sacrifice of lives for the cause of American liberty will never be forgotten and should never be taken for granted. Let us also make certain that we remember those individuals who are in harm's way today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Members of our Armed Forces are giving their best effort--day in and day out--to keep America safe at home and abroad through the Global War on Terror. They have also sacrificed to secure liberty and democracy for other nations and people who desire to be freed from political oppression and given an opportunity for self-determination. I believe that the brave men and women who sacrifice for our present freedoms deserve our fullest support. Our nation's service men and women represent the best our country has to offer, and they must be treated with the respect and honor they deserve. As we ask these courageous soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines--and their families-- to do more and more, it's only right we continue doing all we can for them. Recognizing the success of our members of the United States Armed Forces who participated in the invasion of Normandy on D-day is just one small reminder of the superior job our troops do at home and abroad, and it is my hope that we will continue to do all we can for the members of our Armed Forces.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1610, remembering and honoring those who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It has been nine years since our Nation was forever changed by the horrific events that took place on September 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks that occurred at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and on Flight 93 perpetrated one of the darkest moments in our country's history. That is why it is so important that we come together on this day to again memorialize those who perished on that fateful late summer day in 2001. Madam Speaker, September 11th showed us the very worst of humanity. That day revealed the capabilities of terrorists determined to murder thousands of innocent people in the United States, simply for practicing democracy and enjoying freedom. It gave us a frightening look at the kind of enemy our country faces in the 21st Century. Yet, in the midst of that tragic and horrible day, we saw the very best of what Americans have to offer. We saw the courage, sacrifice, and virtue displayed by our first responders, including police, firefighters, and heroic individuals who were traveling on commercial airliners. Regardless of the potential harm they faced, these brave individuals sacrificed themselves so that others may survive the destruction of the terrorist attacks. Madam Speaker, equally as important as the sacrifices made by those who perished in the attacks of September 11th, we must also use this day to celebrate the service of those in the military, and mourn those who have sacrificed their lives overseas in the defense of our nation. These brave and selfless individuals have helped keep our great country secure in the Global War on Terror and have embodied the very spirit that President George W. Bush stated to a Joint Session of Congress on September 20, 2001. He said, ``We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.'' Our men and women in uniform face an adversary determined to destroy our way of life, and this enemy presents us with one of the gravest challenges in our Nation's history. Each day that they wake up to defend the very freedom we enjoy, they honor the very essence of the American spirit and labor steadfastly to bring freedom and liberty for all. They work tirelessly in the defense of our country, and they deserve nothing but our eternal gratitude. Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that nine years after September 11, 2001, we continue to come together to mourn and memorialize all of our fallen country men and women for making the ultimate sacrifice for us. Year in and year out, we must honor the solemn promise made to the victims and their families of this tragedy-- we will never forget. Our presence here today signifies the sobering realities about our world that accompany the horrors that occurred on September 11th. The memories of that day touch us all in some way, and as our Nation continues to heal--even nine years later--we need to take time each year to remember what tragically occurred in New York City, Arlington, Virginia, and Somerset County, Pennsylvania. It is critically important that we take this time each year to mourn and honor the legacy of our heroes of September 11th.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of a long time friend, Mr. Hawley Smith, Sr., who is celebrating his ninetieth birthday this month. For as long as I have known him, Mr. Smith has been tirelessly devoted to his community, church, and family. Throughout the years, he has served Troup County in many different positions, and I'd like to mention a few that I know are most important to him. Mr. Smith was the first elected Chairman of the Troup County Board of Commissioners, and he remained in that position for 12 years. During this same time period, he helped to shape many other organizations like The Georgia Heart Clinic, the West Georgia Tech Foundation, the Troup County Chapter of the American Red Cross, and the West Georgia Youth Council--just to name a few. Notably, Mr. Smith is the longest continuous member of the Optimist club in the State of Georgia, and he is still active today. He also served as President of the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia, as Chairman of the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority, as Vice-Chairman of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, and as Vice President of the Citizens and Southern National Bank. The list of leadership positions is nearly a page long, which is a testament to how much Mr. Smith cares for his community. He has likewise given countless hours to First United Methodist Church of LaGrange--where he was as a member of the Building Committee, the Board of Stewards and served as the Treasurer and Trustee. His kindness and willingness to help others also led him to become the Director of The Harbor Incorporated, a home for the Christian rehabilitation of alcoholics. He got married to Ms. Ercil Trussell in 1942 and they had 3 beautiful children together. A constant family man, Mr. Smith always tried to provide the best educational environment for his kids, whether that meant serving as the Neighborhood Commissioner for the Boy Scouts or working on the Board of Trustees for Rosemont Elementary School. Madam Speaker, as you can see, Mr. Smith is a compassionate and selfless father, husband, and community member. I want to wish him a very happy ninetieth birthday and thank him for his unwavering service to both Troup County and the great State of Georgia.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield, I would say that the gentleman is absolute, Mr. Speaker, right on target. And he said a key word. And that is that this is a nonpartisan Web site. Yes, it is created by the Republican minority for all of America to let us know, whether they be Democrats, Republicans, independents, libertarians, whatever. Let them have the opportunity to tell us, and let's have a bubble-up-from-the-bottom contract with America, not a top-down driven government-knows-better-than-anybody-else kind of plan that it seems the Democratic majority is heck bent and determined to force on the American people, just as they tried to force a year-and-a-half ago cap- and-trade, an energy policy that was run amok, that would result in probably $1,500 minimum a year per family in increased energy costs. And then of course they come right back after that with this ObamaCare that Representative Graves is talking about. He mentioned the $600 billion worth of increased taxes to pay for it. What he didn't mention was the additional $525 billion cut to the Medicare program, which we all know, all four of us know, is $75 trillion of unfunded liability over the next 50 years, and you're going to gut it 12 percent a year and then have the unmitigated gall, Mr. Speaker, to spend taxpayer money and send out these brochures, these glossy, fancy Medicare brochures assuring seniors that it's going to be better for them to cut their programs 12 percent a year and Medicare Advantage 18 percent a year. I think the American people know better, and I think that the folks in Wisconsin, the folks in Ohio, and the folks in California are going to let those three Representatives know and give them a sure earful when they get back to their districts come August recess.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. In regard to America Speaking Out, the poster--if you don't mind, Mr. Speaker, have the gentleman put that America Speaking Out poster back up so our colleagues can take a good look at it. I was just, as I stood here, thinking about our colleagues from the majority side of the aisle who had the previous hour. There was a Member from Ohio, there was a Member from Wisconsin, and there was a Member from California. And I will just bet you, Mr. Speaker, if the folks in those great States will take the opportunity of going on that Web site, www.AmericaSpeakingOut .com, and input what their concerns are, it would probably mirror what is on that poster that Representative Graves has presented to our colleagues this evening in regard to balance the checkbook, cut spending, repeal the stimulus, $862 billion. Indeed, the Representative from Wisconsin said that wasn't enough spending; we need to spend more.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely astounding. I have seen that chart before, not maybe in quite such a vivid highlight and outline, but Mr. Speaker, my degree is in chemistry. And when I first saw Representative Graves put that chart up for all of our colleagues to see, I thought that was the periodic table. Really, it took me back to my chemistry days and the periodic table of the elements. It's probably changed some now because it has been a long time since I attended Georgia Tech and got that BS in chemistry, but this is more complex than the periodic table. And I'm sure the gentleman from Ranger will agree with me, it's something like 130 new Federal agencies that were created by this mess, all between the doctor and the patient. Maybe my colleague will point out where the doctor is on that chart and where the patient is.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ranger in Gordon County. It's almost my district. We have contiguous congressional districts, and we have the privilege, actually, of sharing Gordon County. The gentleman from Ranger, Representative Graves, has done a great job in a short period of time, Mr. Speaker, in the House of Representatives, and he knows of what he speaks. I mean this is the kind of work that he did in the Georgia House of Representatives, and he represented us extremely well at the State level. It is really interesting to see him on the floor of the House of Representatives now, here to explain to the American people and to our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, what truly is going on here. He and I had the privilege, I guess you could say, of watching the previous hour, of watching our colleagues from the Democratic majority. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that they spent an hour whining about competition from other countries, particularly from China. They wanted to focus in on China and talk about, you know, all of these unfair trade practices and what China is doing in regard to their currency and dumping and all of these things. You'd think there were, indeed, no World Trade Organization to police anything. Yet it was, you know, a whole hour of blaming other countries for the woes that we have in our country. As Representative Graves pointed out, the fact is that we have an unemployment rate of 10 percent, and 16 million people are out of work. I even heard from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, the Representative from Wisconsin, the distinguished Dr. Kagen, say that the problem is that the economic stimulus package of February 2009 of $862 billion--that's right, with a ``b''--was not enough, that they just simply didn't pour enough money into this problem. Of course, we all know on this side of the aisle that we conservative Republicans are going to continue to fight this plan the Democratic majority has of just spending more money. You cannot spend your way out of debt. Every family in this country understands that and understands that very clearly. We'll talk about this in the ensuing hour as we proceed with the colloquy. As Representative Graves points out, Mr. Speaker, the problem is not them. The problem is us. We can blame other countries all we want for our own woes. We can blame Greece. We can blame Spain. They spent an hour blaming China. How about blaming our tax policy that has a corporate tax rate of 35 percent? It is one of the highest rates of any industrialized country. While all of the other countries in Western Europe are lowering their corporate tax rates, we just leave it alone. We don't do anything about it. As the gentleman from Calhoun and from Gordon County just said, we are about to let--not ``we,'' but you, Mr. Speaker, and the Democratic majority--the Bush tax cuts expire. Representatives Graves talks about marginal rates. He didn't have a chance yet--and I'm sure he will--to get into the estate tax and, instead of there being a 15 percent tax on dividends, letting it go up to the marginal rate, indeed up to 39.6 percent, and letting capital gains go back up from 10 or 15 percent to 20 percent. These are the job killers. All of these regulations, union wages, kowtowing to them, giving them special deals, paying them, in many instances far more, and, indeed, even letting them work Federal jobs and negotiate union activities while they're supposed to be working for the taxpayer. I could go on and on, but I want to yield back to the gentleman controlling the time and look forward to my colleagues as we go through this hour.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to ensure that no funds in this bill are used to construct or to renovate any facility in the United States to house Gitmo detainees. Now, I realize that the majority will likely support my amendment given that the bill contains no funds for this purpose; but today, Madam Chairman, I want to challenge the Democratic majority to commit to adhering to an underlying principle, that being that it is wholly unnecessary to transfer the detainees and to close Guantanamo Bay, or Gitmo. No matter what appropriations bills we are considering--today, MILCON/VA, when we come back, DOD, Homeland Security, CJS--this fact still holds true. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the facilities at Gitmo, and the only reason we continue to debate its status is, quite honestly, Madam Chair, for public relations reasons. As I witnessed most recently in April during my third site visit, the Gitmo detainees are treated with dignity and with respect. They are allowed access to their attorneys. They are allowed access to the International Committee of the Red Cross. They are provided with excellent medical care. As I am a physician Member, I know of what I speak. They are even allowed to live in a communal setting. If they were to consume everything provided to them on a daily basis, they would take in 5,500 calories per day. Indeed, most of them have gained anywhere from 15 to 25 pounds since they were originally detained. Their religious customs in all areas of their lives are respected, and they are provided with everything necessary to observe those customs. If the world knew how we were actually treating these detainees, we would not be facing the prospect of spending hundreds of millions of dollars more--money that we don't have unless China will continue to lend it to us--to duplicate what we are already doing at Guantanamo Bay. Madam Chair, transferring the detainees to the United States could eventually lead to their release on American soil, which would put our own citizens at risk. It could create significant immigration issues as aliens could become eligible for asylum or other forms of immigration- related relief from removal. It most certainly would make any facility where they are held a terrorist target. Not surprisingly, Madam Chair, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to closing Gitmo. In a March 2010 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 60 percent of Americans expressed that the United States should continue to operate the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. They understand that the battlefield is not limited to our military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have recently witnessed two attempted attacks on our homeland in the skies over Detroit and, indeed, on the streets of New York City. The American people know that the detainees located at Gitmo are not minor offenders by any means. These detainees include terrorist trainers, terrorist financiers, bomb makers, Osama bin Laden's bodyguards, terrorist recruiters, and would-be suicide bombers. Indeed, one of three adolescents originally detained is currently being tried by a military tribunal. Another, who was released after extensive efforts at rehabilitation, was subsequently killed on the battlefield after returning to the fight in Afghanistan. Madam Chair, simply put, the American people believe that bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to American soil for any purpose puts Americans at risk and is a national security threat. It is time this Congress listens to the collective voice of the American people and stops perpetrating the ``Washington knows best'' mindset. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment on this bill--and on all other appropriations bills--to prevent the wholly unnecessary transfer of Gitmo detainees to American soil. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I want to thank my friend from Texas. In knowing him and his heart, I am not surprised that he would support this amendment, but I want to ask the gentleman a question. Mr. Edwards, can I count on you to commit to supporting this amendment in future appropriations bills so that we can end the debate as to whether Guantanamo Bay should be closed once and for all? I hope the gentleman will answer the question.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, House Resolution 1499, honoring the achievements of Dr. Robert Campbell, Jr. and the work that he did in regard to not only this particular device that Mr. Pallone just described but in regard to a lot of other pediatric medical equipment. I guess today is my day for reflection, Mr. Speaker, because, as a practicing physician for 31 years before being elected as a Member of the House, I distinctly recall having a patient who actually died of this Thoracic Insufficiency Syndrome, which Mr. Pallone was discussing in regard to how Dr. Campbell invented this device, this vertical expandable prosthetic rib. I don't know when that invention occurred. Well, I do know. It was in 1987. So, Mr. Speaker, the story of my patient was before that. My patient was someone who was born with spina bifida, someone who never had usage of her lower body, her limbs. She was what I guess you would refer to as a paraplegic. She did live into adulthood. When she was my patient, she was in her midthirties, and she was beautiful. Her name was Fran. Out of respect for the family, I won't say her last name, but Fran was beautiful. She looked like a child even though she was in her midthirties, but her chest--her thorax--as was just described with Dr. Campbell's patient, had not grown or fully developed, and it was difficult for her to breathe. When Fran actually died, I am sad to say, maybe a couple of years after she became my patient, that is what she died from. Maybe if she, as a child, had had the opportunity to take advantage of Dr. Campbell's knowledge and expertise and contributions to medicine, particularly in the field of pediatrics and pediatric birth defects, maybe Fran would be alive today. That would be great, because she was a wonderful person. So I am very supportive of this resolution honoring Dr. Robert Campbell, Jr. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support House Resolution 1499, the resolution honoring Dr. Robert Campbell, Jr. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as I stood a few minutes before in expressing my concerns about the bill that Representative Lipinski brought forth, the same issue exists with regard to my good friend from California (Ms. Matsui) regarding H.R. 5156, Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act. Ms. Matsui, Mr. Speaker, just momentarily said we need to be exporting clean energy technology. Well, with all due respect, what we need to be exporting is beef and pork and corn and soybeans and, yes, Harley Davidson would like to export a few motorcycles to Colombia, but they can't do it because they face such a high tariff. Again, the bill is fine as far as it goes, other than the fact that you are authorizing another $75 million. And you can say, well, it's an authorization; it's not an appropriation. But if you give permission within committee to let those that do the appropriating, you essentially open up the floodgates for 75 additional million dollars of taxpayer-funded programs. As President Reagan said, you know, government is not the solution to our problems; it is the problem. More and more government growth, spending, deficit debt, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the American people have spoken. I'm going to tell you they are going to speak again. We leave here, I guess, sometime Friday afternoon, and we will be in our district work period this year for not 1 month but probably 6 weeks. We have got to face these people, not just me in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, but every one of us. All 435 of us have got to go home and look these folks in the eye. We have to say, you know, I am trying to explain to you why, in our last week before our break, we authorized another $75 million worth of spending, adding to the $1.4 trillion deficit this year and, indeed, finally adding to the national debt which is now, as we all know, over $13 trillion, something like 95 percent of our gross domestic product. That makes no sense. Again, with all due respect, I know these bills came through committee, voice voted in subcommittee and full committee, but there were concerns. There were concerns about the spending. Representative Parker Griffith, Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Alabama, had an amendment. He said, Look, we need deficit neutrality in this bill. That was one thing that we did vote on, that amendment, and it failed along party lines 30-15, even though the majority party keeps saying, well, you know, we honor PAYGO--except when we don't honor it. Again, my colleague from California is a most respected Member of the committee and this House. As a friend of mine, she is trying, just as Representative Lipinski was trying with his bill. But let's get the job done by lowering corporate tax rates and taking the burden, the regulatory burden off of our manufacturers, and go ahead and pass these free trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama. They have been negotiated to a fare-thee-well, and I think the Democratic majority ought to explain to the American people why we don't do that. That's what we need to do to grow jobs immediately and not just continue to kick the can down the road and study it and study it and study it with an unemployment rate of 10 percent and 16 million people, many of them in the manufacturing sector--in fact, 2 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last couple of years. This has got to stop.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding. I also thank my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for bringing forward this bill, H.R. 4692, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010, as it is formally called. And I also, of course, thank the subcommittee chair, Mr. Rush, as well. I think they should be commended. It's a nice thing to do. It's a nice statement to make, this National Manufacturing Strategy Act. And, as Mr. Lipinski just said, Mr. Speaker, it would assure, hopefully, that manufacturing remains on our national agenda. And that's about all it can do, in my humble opinion. Mr. Speaker, that's just about all it can do if it's 100 percent successful. It will assure that manufacturing remains on our national agenda. When we're sitting here in this country with 10 percent, nearly 10 percent unemployment and 16 million people out of work, many of them for more than 6 months--indeed, that's the reason we wanted to extend unemployment coverage for 99 weeks--it's time, I think, that we need to act, and act very positively, very aggressively. And you just heard, Mr. Speaker, from the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Whitfield, talk about these trade agreements that have been negotiated, in fact, 2 or 3 years ago, with South Korea, with Colombia, with Panama. And yet, the Democratic leadership of this House refuses to bring those trade agreements to the floor for an up-or-down vote. It's just amazing to me that we're spending time on a bill that's going to study the issue more and come forward with a report when we have information that says the free trade agreements with South Korea and Colombia alone would lead to a decline of $40.2 billion--the failure to implement, I should say, the failure to implement those trade agreements will lead to a decline of $40.2 billion in U.S. exports of goods and services. Failure to act would also leave $44.8 billion in missed opportunities for U.S. companies, while also resulting in roughly another 400,000 jobs going elsewhere, that is, offshore. So, again, there's no finer gentleman in this House than Representative Lipinski. I have great respect for him. And I think he's trying to do the right thing because it's the only thing that his majority will let him do, Mr. Speaker. What we need to do is approve these free trade agreements. We need to lower the corporate tax rate. OECD countries have done that, except us, and we're sitting here with a 35 percent corporate tax rate. And we're doing nothing, really we're doing nothing but creating another study group, and that's about as duplicative as you could get. God knows how many study groups, Mr. Speaker, we have already created. I, too, like Mr. Lipinski, meet with my manufacturers in the 11th District of Georgia, and I just did that last week. And we talked about these things, these free trade agreements that have been negotiated, how much it would improve our exports and our positive trade balance and create manufacturing jobs, and do it now. We talked about the tax structure. We talked about overregulation and the burdens that this government is placing on our manufacturers. And then, you know, just like we stand up and honor the troops once a week, I guess at least once a month we stand up and honor the manufacturing industry in the Rust Belt, all the while suffering, 16 million unemployed and a 10 percent unemployment rate. We're not doing anything except studying it to death, as the ship continues to sink. So I say, the bill, I'm going to support it, sure, but this is the wrong approach. And I don't mean any disrespect to my colleagues. It's a good bipartisan effort, and I'm glad that we've finally taken an opportunity to do something in a bipartisan way. But we need to move much quicker, much faster, and much further, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.