Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. How much time do we have, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time under the rule but I am in support of the gentleman's amendment, not in opposition to it.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and the generosity of his time. Mr. Chairman, in this decade, wildland fires have consumed 50 million acres in this country. While the term ``wildland fires'' brings to mind uninhabited areas in our Nation's parks, forests, and rural areas, wildland fires have done tremendous damage to urban and suburban development as well. I think that was the reason for the colloquy between Mr. Wu from Oregon and Mr. Sali from Idaho. Last fall, western States were hit particularly hard by wildland fires that encroached into developed areas and destroyed homes, businesses, and livelihoods. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho addresses that concern. The amendment allows the Administrator of the USFA to distribute information on the importance of clearing in these areas biomass materials from Federal lands, not out in the interior of a National Park. That was a point that was made in the colloquy. The amendment requires USFA to work in consultation, of course, with other Federal agencies to ensure that USFA provides the best possible recommendations. Removing hazardous fuels, biomass materials, from Federal forests and lands will help to prevent, and more importantly, to limit these forest fires as they begin to encroach on urban areas. So if you leave these materials susceptible to forest fires, the consequences, as Mr. Sali pointed out, can be disastrous. So, Mr. Chairman, I support wholeheartedly his amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to myself such time as I might consume. I was recently in Iraq. I've been a number of times, of course, to Iraq, and Afghanistan. And also just recently, I saw a news special back home highlighting one of our great heroes from the Middle East who was burned severely. His injuries, I think, were the result of an improvised explosive device, and he was an occupant of one of the up- armored HUMVEES or the new MRAP vehicles. I think, indeed, it was an up-armored HUMVEE. And while he was not injured by shrapnel or a projectile, there was a fire, and there was a significant fire. And of course, as he was pulled from the burning vehicle, he sustained severe, severe injuries to his person from the fire. And he described how he just, he knew what to do. He rolled, he tried everything in his power. But of course, thanks to what happened to him at Landstuhl Medical Center in Germany, and then eventually at Walter Reed and Bethesda, he's alive and well and has a family and children. And this little news clip featured him playing with his kids. But you could certainly see the ravages that that fire inflicted upon his body, and the scarring of course. What a brave--I wish I could remember his name, Mr. Chairman, because it was, talk about a profile in courage. But it just made me think about, as we've been discussing here today, and you talk about what these firefighters do and how important they are. And actually, as we know, 40 percent of the workload in Operation Iraqi and Enduring Freedom has been carried by our Guard and Reserve, many of whom are firefighters who, you know, they've been trained. And thank God for that. And I'm very hopeful. I want to look into this further. I'm sure that our military, our regular Army and Marine Corps, they're all well-trained in that. But that just goes to show you how important it is, not just to save a life, but try to bring that life back and so they can rejoin their family and friends in society, go back to their job. One of the statistics that I think both Mr. Mitchell and I mentioned in regard to the fact that the latest year that we had numbers, there was still something like 37, 3,800 people that lose their lives every year in fires in this country. Well, you know what? That's about the number, we're at 4,000 now, that have lost their lives in this 4\1/2\, 5-year war. And of course there were practically 3,000 lives lost, many of them from fire, a lot of them firefighters themselves, on 9/11. So it just brings home the message that fire is an awful thing. It is an awful thing. It might not kill you immediately, like one of these high powered projectiles, but it can certainly destroy one's life. And so what we're talking about here today is so important, and that's why this bill is so important. I just wanted to make those remarks, Mr. Chairman. I, at this time, don't have additional speakers waiting for time, but I would like to reserve the balance of my time. And I still make the offer to yield to the gentleman from Arizona if he needs some more minutes.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield to the ranking member of the full committee, the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). I yield to him as much time as he might consume.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, if I might ask my good friend from Arizona how much time, first of all, does he have left, and does he have additional speakers.

Mr. GINGREY. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time. But if the gentleman needs some time from our side, we will be glad to yield it to him.

Mr. GINGREY. I would be happy, Mr. Chairman, if the Chair would allow, to yield up to 5 minutes for the gentleman from Arizona to close. But I want to make my closing remarks, of course, before that.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve my time. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being labeled the skunk at the annual fragrance picnic, I do rise today in opposition to this structured rule. I know compromises have been made to improve the underlying legislation, but I think there is plenty of room for additional improvement. Just because we have a good program, to increase the spending from $15 billion to $50 billion, I wonder if there is justification for that. But here we are again, Mr. Speaker, considering a rule that restricts debate on another Republican-created program for which the Democratic majority is now proposing a massive expansion. We already have more than our share of entitlement programs right here in the United States. And to me, it now appears the majority is on the verge of using taxpayer dollars to create a global entitlement program. Remember, Mr. Speaker, PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, was created back in 2003 to provide emergency relief for AIDS. I will certainly say as a physician, that of course I am encouraged by the increased desire in the bill to also help fight against tuberculosis and malaria. However, Mr. Speaker, we should not devise a plan to treat these diseases without defining how to actually buy sufficient medications to provide the necessary care. The majority said that a treatment floor was not included in this bill as it was in the original legislation because the cost of medications have decreased. That may be true, yet while it has more than tripled the price tag for the PEPFAR expansion as I said in this bill, it has not tripled the number of people that it plans to reach with medication. So if the cost of medications have gone down, I think they have and the majority states they have, shouldn't the massive increase in the cost of this program be matched by a proportionate increase in the people that we target through the program? Mr. Speaker, I was at the Rules Committee yesterday. I offered an amendment to just simply say keep that floor of 55 percent of the money going to treat the patient. The Rules Committee, unfortunately, did not make that in order. Since the majority is not allowing adequate input on this legislation, particularly from the minority, I would urge my fellow Members to vote against this rule, give us a chance to go back and make some of the needed changes in an otherwise good bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Georgia School for the Deaf's football team on winning the 2007 National Eight- Man Deaf Prep Football Championship. It's located in the heart of Cave Spring, Georgia, Floyd County, in my 11th District. The school has now won three national football titles since it was established in 1846, almost 160 years ago. This year's team finished the season with an outstanding 7 and 1 record, and they defeated schools from six other States. Madam Speaker, the Tigers exhibited dedication, teamwork, and perseverance all season long, and it certainly paid off. I want to congratulate their Athletic Director and Head Football Coach, Erik Whitworth; his Assistant Coaches, Sidney Sharp, David Conti, Eugene Neal, B.B. Chubb, and Shawn Self, as well as the entire Tiger football team on a great season. Four of the team members, Patrick Bryant, Andy Sugg, Timothy Simmons, and Andrew Henderson were all selected as members of the All American Deaf Football Team. Madam Speaker, all of these athletes have brought much pride to Georgia, to the School for the Deaf, and the entire State, and I ask you to join me in celebrating their accomplishment.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Well, I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank all of my colleagues for bringing this important issue to the floor tonight to make sure that each and every Member on both sides of the aisle has a good understanding of this issue. And anybody who might be listening or tuned in, but mainly for our colleagues here to understand. The gentlewoman from New Mexico clearly understands the issue. The gentleman from Texas, having worked in the Justice Department, clearly understands the issue. Our colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) who was here last week with us, I know that he clearly understands. But it can be confusing. And you know, you listen to this, and I think sometimes eyes glass over pretty quickly when you get into the weeds of it. But I think the bottom line is what my colleagues have already said. This law originally passed for the reasons Representative Wilson outlined back in the late 1970s. And it was very much based on the technology of the time. And here we are in 2008, and I don't even have a hard line at my apartment here in Washington. We have a cell phone. And we have a cell phone that has a yearly contract. But, of course, the bad guys, what they do, in regard to cell phone technology, is they buy these throwaway cell phones and these burn cards and it's very difficult to track them. So in the modernization of FISA in the Protect America Act, and indeed in the PATRIOT Act, we tried to bring that law into the 21st century. And I'll tell you this; I trust the three Michaels on this. I trust the Attorney General, Michael Mukasey; I trust Michael McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. I trust Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA. And I think they would tell us what they are telling us no matter who was in the White House, no matter who the Commander in Chief was. This is not political. They're basically saying to the Congress, we need these tools. We need these new tools. We need to grant immunity to the telecommunications companies so they can provide phone records to us, so that our intelligence experts can look at this data, if you want to call it data mining. I don't know exactly how it's done. But you have to have that ability. And indeed, the telecommunications companies in this country are required by Federal law under the penalty of both civil and criminal if they don't provide this data. So they're darned if they do and they're darned if they don't. And the Democrats seem to want to insist that this liability persist. I don't know. Maybe it's a sop to the trial lawyers. But it's absolutely essential that we pass this bill. And as my colleagues pointed out, here we are 18 days since the FISA law expired. I heard Mr. Reyes say on television this weekend on one of the Sunday morning TV shows, well, you know, we've talked to the telecommunications companies. He, of course, I'm referring to the gentleman from Texas, who is the chairman of the Select House Committee on Intelligence basically saying it's time, now that we understand, he understands the need that let's go ahead and pass this law. And here we are this week and what happens? You know, this is the 18th day. It just goes on and on and on. So clearly, I think when you strike right to the bottom line, it's exactly what my colleagues have said. You don't have to understand it any more than that. We need this renewal. We need this modern technology of this law to continue to protect our citizens. I'm honored to be here with my colleagues and to share my thoughts, although I don't have the depth of knowledge that they do. I don't need to have that. I just have a little faith in what my colleagues are telling me and the need to protect our citizens. So with that I will yield back to the gentleman from Texas, and be glad to be with my colleagues for the rest of the hour and continue to dialogue with them.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. It's just like I said earlier about the chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who I have tremendous respect for, and I think on both sides of the aisle, my colleagues would agree with me, a good man, a good Member. And what he said Sunday morning, this past Sunday morning, was, look, we have now had the opportunity to talk with the telecommunication companies and understand what it is they need to provide under the law and why they did that, why they did it in a patriotic way, and yes, Mr. Moderator, we are ready to move forward and modernize this bill. And I'm reading his lips. I'm listening to what he says, and I believe him and I sincerely believe that he wanted this bill to be brought to this floor this week. As my colleagues have already said, it would pass overwhelmingly, but unfortunately, I can't help but believe that a good man, Mr. Reyes, is being trumped by his leadership. And as the gentlewoman from New Mexico just said, why? Why would they do that unless, again, it's more concern for this special narrow interest group of trial attorneys that want to bring more lawsuits against telecommunications companies who were just obeying the law that they were required to obey. I just want to point out, too, that as my colleagues have said, the 9/11 Commission, which was insisted upon by the 9/11 families, led by a distinguished Democrat, Lee Hamilton, former Republican Governor of New Jersey, Governor Kean, they clearly understood that we had a stovepipe system pre-9/11 in regard to intelligence gathering, as my colleague from Texas said, not really finding the dots, much less connecting them. And it was a clear outline, a clear blueprint that that commission asked us to do. That, indeed, is what ultimately led to creation of a directorship of national intelligence so that those 16 or 18 communities of intelligence, many of which are within the Department of Defense, could talk to one another so that we could win this war. This global war on terrorism is not going to be won with air superiority, sea superiority, greater weapons systems. It's going to be won with greater intelligence, and that's what this is all about. And I yield back to my friend from Texas and I thank him for the time.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have heard, particularly from our side of the aisle, the objection to this bill, H.R. 1424, in regard to procedure and in regard to pay- fors, which basically I agree with. The fact is that this is the 50th time that the Democratic majority has brought forth a bill, an important bill, with a closed rule and no opportunity for our side. In the case of myself as a physician member, I think I had some good thoughts about this bill. In fact, I was proud to support the extension of the original Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. I thought that was a good thing. But now my objection to the rule and the underlying bill, Mr. Speaker, is mainly about policy. I think they have taken this bill and adulterated it to an extent that it is unbelievable that the gentlelady from Florida in her opening remarks said that this is a business-friendly piece of legislation. Now if we were talking about covering things like bipolar disorder, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress syndrome, certainly this is very important that we have mental health parity. But as one of the previous speakers on our side of the aisle said, what you have done in expanding this to cover things on a mandated basis to our employees, diseases in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses, jet lag fatigue, caffeine intoxication, sibling rivalry, substance induced sexual dysfunction, transvestite fetishism, can you imagine any employer being willing to cover things like that? You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You had a good bill. I was proud to support it, and I would proudly support it today, but to expand it to the point where no employer will offer mental health coverage, that means so many of these people, families with adult children, adult dependent children, who are suffering from some of these conditions that we know of that I mentioned, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, they desperately need help, and they need health parity. I am in favor of that and I would support it. That is why I am supportive of the Senate version. But I stand here, and I ask all of my colleagues to look at this and read it and understand why hardly any employer would accept this and provide health coverage when it provides all of these things that are totally unnecessary. With that, I ask my colleagues to defeat this rule and this underlying legislation. Let's take it back to the drawing board and do probably what Paul Wellstone intended originally, and my friend Patrick Kennedy as well. We have ruined an otherwise good bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 47th anniversary of the Peace Corps, which occurred on Saturday, March 1. Since its establishment in 1961, more than 190,000 United States citizens have served our Nation in the cause of peace by living and working in 139 developing countries, world-wide. Coming from all walks of life, these public servants have furthered the message of peace and freedom as they developed long-lasting relationships and good-will with nations around the world. Madam Speaker, I would specifically like to recognize the efforts of individuals of Georgia's 11th District, who are currently serving with the Peace Corps. I want to personally thank David Egetter, who is furthering the message of peace in Honduras, Hannah Garland, who is serving in Micronesia, Wilbert Newhall, serving in Tanzania, Katy Nicholson, serving in Albania, and Davin Stogner, serving in Vanuatu. Madam Speaker, I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in thanking all of our Nation's eight thousand plus Peace Corps volunteers for their work to advance the ideals upon which our great Nation was founded.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 85 on S. 2272, I am not recorded because I was absent on the account of the birth of my granddaughter. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 86 on H.R. 3936, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 87 on H.R. 4454, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I know that as we go through our time in the Congress, each of us wants to be remembered for some signature accomplishment, and Madam Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from New Mexico. I would say that maybe she's got many signature issues that she brought before the membership of this body, but certainly this issue of intelligence and national security is a signature issue. I commend her for her will and determination in trying to explain to her colleagues on both sides of the aisle an issue that may be somewhat difficult to understand. There is a lot of arcaneness about this issue when you try to get into the weeds of it. So it's important to have Members like Representative Heather Wilson and Peter Hoekstra, ranking member on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, to help frame this issue for us. But I think it's important to understand, as my neighbor, my colleague and friend from Oregon, Representative Walden, just pointed out, the bottom line, when you cut right to the chase, is that last Thursday we left this place and went home for our district work period during the Presidents Day recess without addressing this issue and we took a break. Maybe some Members were even out of the country. I know, Madam Speaker, I stayed in my district the whole time hoping, literally hoping every day that I would get that call to come back to Washington to fix this because, as my colleagues have pointed out, this is just so important to let something like this lapse. I would like to have our colleague leading the hour, Representative Wilson, maybe explain to the membership here so they can get a better understanding of why we need to modernize this 30-year-old FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978, why it is so important to be able to bring it into the 21st century. And maybe she could explain to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle the importance of data mining, of being able to get the cooperation of telecommunication companies, if she has not already done that, why it is important to get that information and look at patterns of communication so that we can understand what these terrorists and what these foreign intelligence agents are doing, and why it's such a tremendous threat to this country. I yield back to my colleague. And I will remain here during this hour and hopefully engage her in more colloquy, and with the gentleman from Oregon, but I would like to hear some discussion on that.

Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate so much the gentlewoman's yielding. Madam Speaker, I think one of the most important aspects of this hour, and I know we are running short on time and I want to yield back to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, but one of the most important things for people to understand, Members of this body on both sides of the aisle, is the telecommunications companies voluntarily but yet under the law, under the PATRIOT Act, were required to provide information of their records, their phone records, under the threat of criminal and civil penalties from our own Justice Department. So that's why it's so important that they have retroactive immunity in regard to this issue. And these records are so important, and I will quickly say this, what people are doing today that's part of the modernization, they are not using hard lines. My colleague from Pennsylvania held up those two cell phones. They're buying these throw-away $49.95 cell phones and burn cards, and the only way you can develop a pattern is if our intelligence experts have access to the records of the telecommunications companies so they can look at it and develop a pattern. So that's why that's so important.

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentlewoman would yield, I would say the ultimate disrespect was 9/11.

Mr. GINGREY. And I appreciate my colleague from Pennsylvania bringing that out. In fact, I will use some of the quotes. And I think this is important that my colleagues understand this, Madam Speaker, because this was a decision that the Democratic leadership made, almost 9 days ago now, to leave this place without reauthorizing and giving that liability protection to the telecommunications industry that is so important and that has made this program work ever since 9/11. This is basically what the majority leader of this House said, and I quote from Representative Steny Hoyer: ``I don't think anything is going to erode.'' And that's basically what he said when he left here. But the truth is, and my colleague from Pennsylvania alluded to comments made by the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, J. Rockefeller, the Democrat from West Virginia, and basically he said, clearly, what people have to understand around here that the quality of the intelligence that we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded, it is going to be degraded, it is already going to be degraded. And he said that on the Senate floor on Valentine's Day, 2/ 14. Here is what 21 Blue Dog House Democrats said when they wrote a letter to Speaker Pelosi: ``We have it within our ability to replace the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong, bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed into law, and we should do so.'' And then finally, as we have said here several times tonight, Madam Speaker, Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, after all, it was the Democratic majority that wanted a Director of National Intelligence, it was the 9/11 families that wanted a Director of National Intelligence. And here he says to us: ``Some have claimed that expiration of the Protect America Act would not significantly affect our operations. Such claims are not supported by the facts. Without the act in place, vital programs would be plunged into uncertainty and delay, and capabilities would continue to decline.'' I yield back to my colleague from New Mexico, but it's clear, it's so clear.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise not in opposition to the bill. I think there are some good things in the bill. I was a former member of the Education and Workforce Committee. I know our ranking member, Mr. McKeon, is a supporter of the bill. I rise in strong opposition to this rule, Mr. Speaker. The gentlewoman on the Rules Committee on the majority side, the gentlewoman from Ohio, has mentioned a couple of things in her remarks, talking about what we Republicans did when we controlled this body and, indeed, the Rules Committee and how restrictive we may have been. But what I want to remind her is that I sat on that Rules Committee during that time, and I can remember the comments that were made from the minority, the then Democratic minority, that if they had an opportunity to control this place, then rules would be open and fair and people would be treated fair so that each Member would have an opportunity. They didn't say, Well, when we get the majority, we're going to stick it to you just like you've stuck it to us. So I think they should live by what they said they would do. And the other thing I want to point out to the gentlewoman from Ohio is that she talked about the bipartisanship on this bill, a 45-0 vote. Well, 45 Members of this body is 10 percent, and 90 percent of us don't get an opportunity to speak on the bill and to offer what I think are very good amendments. Now, 47 were submitted; 27 were made in order. But how many Republican amendments? It was 4 out of 27. Mine wasn't one of them, and I had a very good amendment, Mr. Speaker. This is the only opportunity I get to talk about it. It's a bipartisan amendment. Basically, Mr. Speaker, this amendment deals with FERPA, the Family Education Privacy Rights Act of 1974. The tragedy at Virginia Tech where we lost so many lives was, I think, because colleges and universities misinterpret that law. And my amendment would simply say that if a parent lists a child, a student, on their tax return as a dependent, even though they might be over age 18 or maybe they are a junior and age 20, but if they are a dependent as verified by the tax return, then those parents should have access to academic records, disciplinary records, drinking on campus, whatever. And many of us, I'm sure, have had college students where because of FERPA we never could find out how our youngsters were doing until they were in dire trouble, maybe flunking out of school or having a substance abuse problem. I commend Representative Tim Murphy for his work in regard to mental health issues along this same line. But this was a very good amendment, Mr. Speaker, and one that I would think Democrats would want to join Republicans and vice versa and have unanimous support of that. So I am very disappointed. I am very disappointed not only for myself but for the American people, my constituents, students, and parents all across this country. So, again, it's not the bill that I am opposed to. I am opposed to this restrictive rule.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 29 on H. Res. 867, Commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup, I am not recorded, as I was absent due to my attendance at a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 30 on H. Res. 942, Recognizing the significance of Black History Month, I am not recorded, as I was absent due to my attendance at a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 31 on H. Res. 943, Remembering the space shuttle Challenger disaster and honoring its crew members, who lost their lives on January 28, 1986, I am not recorded, as I was absent due to my attendance at a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''