Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take time this evening to address the House of Representatives regarding a very important person, someone who has meant so much to me throughout my life. My mother, Ms. Helen Gingrey, turns 90 years old February 8, 2008. Mr. Speaker, I know that you and Members of the House of Representatives will want to join me tonight in saying ``Happy 90th birthday, Mom.'' It's important in this day and age for children to grow up in a strong family environment like the one that my parents provided for me. And I would hope that throughout my tenure here representing the 11th Congressional District of Georgia that I'll always be aware of how my actions will affect the American families who are, after all, the backbone of this Nation. My mother has had a great life, and she's been a blessing to both her community and to her family. She is the daughter of Irish and Scotch immigrants, John Gannon and Ellen Heron. She was born in New York City in 1918, where she grew up with her three sisters, Peggy, Mary and Catherine, and brother, Dan. Raised in Manhattan, she met and, after a 10-month courtship, she married my dad when she was 20 years old. James Franklin Gingrey was a native of Aiken County, South Carolina. He and his two brothers and a sister, struggled in childhood after their mother died in childbirth at age 25. Dad came to New York at age 16 and near poverty with little means of support. God did not bless him with material things, but allowed him, by pure chance, to meet the love of his life, Helen Cecelia Gannon, my mom. Jimmy and Helen became husband and wife in 1938, and they remained together for 44 years until his death. After Dad finished high school in the New York City Night program, my parents, with a 1-year-old son, William, Bill, my brother, moved back to South Carolina and settled in Edgefield. Soon the family unit grew to five, as my brother James and I were born in nearby Augusta, Georgia. My dad left this world 28 years ago having worked side by side with my mom in a number of labor-intensive small businesses. These included, Mr. Speaker, a used car lot, a curb service drive-in restaurant, a package shop, and finally a ``Mom and Pop'' motel. They never had a chance to attend college, but by the sweat of their brow, they gave that opportunity to their three sons. To my knowledge, there were no welfare checks, food stamps or Medicaid program to lighten their load. Mr. Speaker, as I honor my mother today, I want to thank her for a loving parenthood and for instilling in my brothers and me the principles of hard work, good education, personal responsibility, respect for the diversity of others, love of family, love of country but, most important, love of God. These are not only excellent principles for rearing children, Mr. Speaker, but also a good recipe for the initiatives we continue to work on here in the 110th Congress. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to use the examples of Helen Cecelia Gannon Gingrey and all wonderful mothers like her to set an agenda that emphasizes and supports our Nation's greatest treasure, the American family.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, we hear from the other side that we are here eight, 10, 12 times for the children. And certainly we are. On both sides of the aisle, we are here for the children. But we are here for the needy children. And that's what we did a month ago when enacting in almost unanimous fashion Senate bill 2499, which expands this SCHIP program for 18 months and not only expands it but increases the spending almost 20 percent, some 800 million additional dollars to cover, yes, these children that President Bush said he was determined to cover. But what the Democratic majority wants to do is increase this program by 140 percent, cover an additional 4 million children on top of the 6 million that are already covered. And as my colleague Representative Deal of Georgia pointed out, of those 4 million, 2 million would be children who are already covered by private health insurance. One of my other colleagues on the other side of the aisle stood up and said shouldn't we provide health insurance for the children of hardworking Americans? Well, no, not if they're making $75,000 a year. We are going to come back to this floor in the next week or two with a $150 billion economic stimulus package to get us out of a recession. We need the money for that. So we don't want to be squandering money to provide health insurance for those who could afford to do it for themselves. I think the program that we have enacted in a bipartisan way said it all, and if we wanted to have this override of the President's veto of this bloated program that the Democrats proffered, increasing the spending by $35 billion just so you can cover 4 million additional children, half of whom do not need that government help, then we should have had that override vote a month ago. The reason we are doing it today is for political reasons in anticipation of embarrassing the President prior to the State of the Union Address next week. It's pure and simple politics. Reject this vote.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding and I thank Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Lipinski as well, and I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 916 honoring the contributions of Catholic schools across the country, for the upcoming commemoration of National Catholic Schools Week from January 27 to February 2. Mr. Speaker, as a graduate of Catholic elementary and high schools, Sacred Heart Academy and Aquinas High School in Augusta, Georgia, I am keenly aware of the contributions that they provide to the 2.3 million students across this country they teach every year. These include 1,176 students at three Catholic schools in my district, the 11th of Georgia: St. Catherine of Siena in Kennesaw, Georgia; St. Joseph's in my hometown of Marietta, Georgia; and St. Mary's in Floyd County, Rome, Georgia. Not only do Catholic schools, like Sacred Heart and Aquinas, provide a strong and competitive academic environment, they also teach moral and ethical standards, skills for living and self esteem, and a Christian integration of spirit, mind, and body in each of their students. Upon graduating from Aquinas, I thought that the Catholic school curriculum would be what best prepared me for my future. But, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was wrong. While the strenuous academics at Sacred Heart and Aquinas did lay the foundation for success at Georgia Tech and the Medical College of Georgia, it was the faith and ethical standards taught at these schools that truly prepared me for life's struggles. Mr. Speaker, while opening and running my medical practice, the respect for life at Sacred Heart and Aquinas led me to value and care for life at all stages from conception on. And now that I have left my medical career to serve as Member of this great body, I find my lessons from these Catholic schools more valuable than ever on a daily basis. We are all confronted with difficult questions that affect millions of lives. If it were not for the moral standards and the faith in God taught at Sacred Heart and Aquinas, I do not believe that I could properly represent the people of northwest Georgia. So, Mr. Speaker, Catholic schools in northwest Georgia and all across our great country provide an incredible valuable service to our education system and truly prepare their students for a bright future. I urge all of my colleagues, support H. Res. 916.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for leading this hour and for allowing me to be with him tonight and for giving me this time. I think my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, know that my prior career, my profession before becoming a Member of Congress 5\1/2\ years ago was I practiced medicine, and not just as a medical doctor, but as an OB/GYN specialist. In that specialty for 26 years, I delivered over 5,200 babies during that time. I am very proud to say that I performed no abortions. But I think it is important for our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and for men and women across this country to understand how this Roe v. Wade came about 35 years ago in 1973. Prior to that, abortion in many States was illegal. It could not be performed. In some instances, yes, it was true that women would have what is known as a criminal abortion done, and sometimes with very devastating consequences to the woman. If the abortion was done by a doctor with skills, surgical skills, there probably were no complications, other than destroying that human life, that little human life. But if the abortion was performed in an unprofessional, botched manner, then the life not only of the fetus but also of the woman was at stake. When I was an intern at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, back in those days in the late 1960s, 1969, 1970, yes, there occasionally was a patient on the ward suffering from septic shock. And in one instance I very vividly remember that that patient, that mother who had had an abortion done and the complications thereof, infection set in and she died. And these cases were presented across the country to the Supreme Court eventually, basically, in Roe v. Wade. And then all of a sudden the Supreme Court said that no State, no State could proscribe abortion. That is what we got to in 1973. And since that time, of course, as my colleague from Michigan just mentioned, something like 48 million lives have been destroyed in the abortion process, in that so-called safe, legal process, where the procedures are done by licensed physicians, and they are done under certain circumstances, maybe in a hospital with anesthesia, and it is very safe and that no mothers die. Well, some mothers do die. But without question, some 48 million little children, potential Members of Congress in fact, lost their lives by this abortion procedure. And that is why I am so proud to be here tonight to join with my colleagues, with the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, Mr. Franks, Mr. Davis, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Lamborn and others to talk about this issue. Each of us will have a little bit of time. But I am very grateful to be standing here tonight to know that today on the Mall, right here at the Capitol, we had so many come. I don't know how many thousands of families came. We had something like 12 or 14 Members of Congress speak on behalf of life, the life of the infant, the life of the fetus. This is a very proud day, and it is a very proud evening too for us to stand here for the sanctity of life. Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on a couple of charts that I have got. The first one, if my colleagues will look, basically says this. This is a quote from a very important person, and I will mention her in just a minute. ``Abortion, at any point, was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.'' That ends the quote. This is from Norma McCorvey, better known as Jane Roe from Roe v. Wade. In other words, she was the plaintiff. Mrs. McCorvey wanted to have an abortion in a State that didn't allow it, so she was the plaintiff. This quote is taken from her book, ``Won by Love'' by Norma McCorvey, and she is now a pro-life advocate. She didn't have that abortion, because by the time Roe v. Wade was passed, she had gone on and had that little girl, who is in her mid-thirties now. Mrs. McCorvey, Norma, is also the proud grandmother of two children. Thank God that she didn't have that abortion. Listen to what Susan B. Anthony, this is way long, many years ago, in another century, said even before this issue came up. ``Abortion is a reflection of our society's failure to meet the needs of women. We are dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion.'' That is a quote from Susan B. Anthony. What I want to point out is that many States now, many States, including my own State of Georgia, I am very proud that we have passed, as this poster shows, a ``woman's right to know law,'' required not just in Georgia, but in 23 States, that women who seek abortions be fully informed about relevant issues such as, the first bullet point, medical risk of abortion; the possible detrimental psychological effects of an abortion; a father's legal responsibility in State laws for paternal child support; and medical assistance benefits may be available to prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care. Mr. Speaker, the Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, that we just in the last month reauthorized for an additional 18 months, does include prenatal care so that women are not forced for financial reasons to terminate a pregnancy. So this is really what Susan B. Anthony was talking about so many years ago. What we are seeing as a result of that, in my last chart that I want to present, is that over these 35 years, we are seeing a gradual and actually dramatic drop in the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. Those women who are most fertile, that peaked at 29 per 1,000 women that age back in 1979. Now the latest statistics in 2005, that number has dropped down to something like 19.4. So we are making great progress. The point that I want to make in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is we don't need to continue to destroy life. We need to inform women. We need to inform women of their choices, the alternatives to destroying a human life, which in almost every instance they are opposed to. But they are uninformed, they are frightened, they are scared, they are concerned about raising a child as a single parent. But if they are given the opportunity maybe to place that child for adoption, if they know there is financial help available, if they know that there are counselors who want to work with them that help them if they decide to have their baby and be a single parent, if that is the case, these are the things that we need to be concentrating on, Mr. Speaker. So as I conclude, I just want to say to the gentleman from Arizona, I thank him for giving all of us an opportunity tonight to speak on this hugely important issue. Let's stand for the rights of the unborn. Let's not be so concerned about some person who is already here, man or woman, about their property rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Let's think about what we said in our Declaration of Independence and think about unalienable rights, such as the right to life. Let's think about what is in the Charter of the United Nations, that every member nation is bound to abide by, and that is the sanctity of life. And, last but not least, what God says in both the New and the Old Testament, thou shalt not kill; you shall not take another's life. That is why we stand here tonight, to bring that to our Members. I yield back to the gentleman from Arizona, and thank him for allowing me to be part of this.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman will yield, I will point out that my 2 years of calculus at Georgia Tech, when I was getting that degree in chemistry, has not helped me one bit with figuring out this formula. So I appreciate the fact that the gentleman agrees it is an absolutely impossible, arcane system to ever figure out. And how they came up with it is Greek to me. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank Dr. Burgess for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the issue of medical liability reform is something that we've been talking about for a long time in this House of Representatives and in the other body, and it's time that we do something about it. I remember back in 2004, during the Presidential debate between our current President Bush and the Democratic nominee, Senator Kerry, and on one particular debate they were talking about the cost of medical malpractice insurance. And Senator Kerry made the statement that, well, you know, if a doctor has to pay $40,000, $50,000 a year, some can afford it; that's just a very small amount in the big scheme of things. And I thought President Bush did such a great job of responding to that and he said, you know, Senator, I believe you missed the point. Yeah, some doctors can afford to pay $50,000, some can afford to pay $75,000 a year, depending on their specialty, for medical malpractice coverage; other doctors can't. But that is really not the point. The point that causes the cost of medicine to go up so much is that all of these physicians practice in a defensive mode, and they order tests in many instances that are absolutely unnecessary, way too expensive, and, indeed, can be harmful to the patient. You know, I would imagine today, Mr. Speaker, if you went to any emergency room in this country with a headache, you are not going to get out of there without a CT scan being performed. And that particular procedure, by the time it is done and the radiologist reads the film, you're talking about $500, $600, when it would be obvious to a clinician, a skilled clinician in physical diagnosis that this patient is suffering from a tension headache or maybe a migraine headache. So this is where that cost goes up so much. I appreciate the gentleman giving me an opportunity to talk about it because the model for tort reform is what the State of California did back in 1978; the acronym is MICRA. But basically what we're talking about is to say that no patient who is injured by a physician practicing below the standard of care or a health care facility practicing below the standard of care that results in direct harm to the patient, they should have every opportunity for their day in court. Dr. Burgess and I probably have seen situations where we are pulling for the plaintiff because we know what happened in the particular setting and maybe in our community. But the judgments for so-called pain and suffering that can be up into the millions of dollars, which are totally unrelated to the degree of injury, is inappropriate. And that's basically what was passed in California and it has worked. The State of Texas, my State of Georgia, the State of Florida, several States have done this; but the vast majority of States are in situations where you don't see any neurosurgeons covering the emergency room. You see very few OB/GYN doctors staying in practice beyond the age of 50. They're all either getting out of the practice completely or they're going over to just a GYN practice. So I thank my colleague for bringing this issue up. And as I finish my remarks and yield back to the gentleman from Texas, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that what happens so many times in what we do, we're constrained because of the cost. And we base cost on programs like Medicare part D, by this so-called static scoring that it cost too much money when so often programs like that have the potential to, in the long run, save money, but would get no credit for it. So we don't do things that we should be doing. Just like, as we were talking about earlier in the evening on electronic medical records, yes, it would cost some money, Mr. Speaker; the Federal Government would have to spend some money. I think that the new Democratic leadership has made a mistake in enacting these PAYGO rules which make it impossible in some instances to do things like the physician payment fix that Dr. Burgess is talking about, the repeal of the alternative minimum tax, which clearly was a mistake, an oversight 35 years ago when it wasn't indexed for inflation. And so now the Democratic leadership has put themselves in a position where we can't get things done because of those PAYGO rules when in the long run the program that we would enact would save money; it wouldn't cost money. So you would be paying for it doubly by cutting another program and raising taxes to pay for something that will eventually pay for itself. And, certainly, I think that's true with Medicare part D, and I absolutely believe it is true with the electronic medical records system that we need in this country, and I think it's true in regard to medical liability reform that Dr. Burgess is talking about. So I thank the gentleman for bringing that up, and I yield back.

Mr. GINGREY. I also had an opportunity over that Labor Day weekend to go down on an angel flight to Baton Rouge and to try to help man, staff an emergency Red Cross clinic there. I think it was called the River Center, a huge clinic that had been set up. And as we began to see patients, I realized the enormity of this situation, as Dr. Burgess points out with his poster. One patient in particular was HIV positive and seven months pregnant and had not received any medication, retrovirus medication in 2 weeks, and this is the kind of thing that is life or death. This situation in New Orleans really pointed it out. But suppose someone from this country is traveling in another country where they don't speak the language, and all of a sudden some catastrophic event occurs, a stroke, where the person cannot communicate. There's no way that the physicians, no matter how skilled they might be in the emergency room, and in the Ukraine they're not going to be able to take care of somebody from the United States that cannot communicate. But with electronic medical records, it's just a matter of a swipe of a card, just like you do your American Express card where the radio frequency, identification system, secure, absolutely secure, privacy maintained, guaranteed, a system set up by our Federal Government where the standards are the same across the board. It, without question, would save a tremendous amount of money. The Rand Corporation estimates something like $175 to $200 billion a year out of that $1.6 trillion medical expenditures each year, $200 billion savings. But more important than the cost saving, of course, is the life savings aspect of it. So I'm so glad the gentleman from Texas (Dr. Burgess) brought that up and showed that very, very telling poster.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, my colleague; and as he pointed out, we're both in our prior life MDs and both in the same specialty, OB/GYN. I practiced a little bit longer than the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess; but we certainly know of what we speak in regard to the stress and strain of everyday life, a work day in a physician practice across this country, whatever specialty it might be. I was listening in my office just a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, as he talked about some of the things that we failed to do in the first session of this 110th Congress last year, 2007. He started off his discussion talking a little bit about that, the SCHIP program. I think most people, all of our colleagues of course, understand SCHIP is an acronym for State Children's Health Insurance Program, as Representative Burgess pointed out, enacted 10 years ago. It was a good, a good program. I think 1997, a 10-year authorization for this program, and it would expire. We wanted to see, of course, how it would work, was it going to be a good thing. So when you put sunsets on programs that makes sense, because sometimes ideas don't turn out so good. But this one really did. And the basic concept, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, was to try to help parents have health insurance for their children when they were in a situation where their income was too much to qualify for safety-net programs, in particular the Medicaid program; they were making more than that minimum amount. But, yet, in no way were they coming close to having enough income, discretionary income to pay even their portion of a health insurance premium for their children if their employer happened to cover part of it. And, of course, many didn't. So this program was a wildly successful program covering about 6 million children a year, Mr. Speaker, and spending about $5 billion a year in the process. And it was a Federal/State matching program, more generous on the part of the Federal Government, the taxpayers across this country, than the Medicaid program, which was more a 55/45 sharing. The SCHIP program was a better deal, if you will, for State governments. And it worked so well, of course, that there were 6 million children covered, I stated, and it was estimated that in some States that there were children that were falling through the safety net and not getting the coverage because States like my own of Georgia, and my own district, the 11th of Georgia, we were running out of money. So I think clearly, as this program came to its expiration date this past year, everybody in this body, in this House and in the other body, in the Senate, I think all 435 Members realized we wanted to reauthorize this program and we needed to spend a little bit more money to make sure that those children that were eligible, needed the coverage, there would be enough money available for them. Most people estimated that about 1 million additional children, 750,000 to 1 million children, we have some of them in the State of Georgia, needed that coverage. So President Bush in his wisdom said let's reauthorize this program and let's increase the spending by 20 percent, and I thought that was a pretty generous thing; that would cover these additional children. But as Dr. Burgess pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority came to the floor with a bill that was not even vetted in committee, certainly no Member of the minority party had much chance at all to see this bill, that wanted to increase coverage to up to 10 million children. Now, we were covering 6 million, and they arbitrarily wanted to increase that coverage to 10 million. So that's an additional 4 million children, Mr. Speaker, when by anybody's estimate there were no more than 1 million that were in this range that warrant getting coverage. So I honestly believe that the Democratic majority wanted to bring forward a piece of legislation that in no way could any fiscally responsible Member of this body vote in favor of. And it's hard to stand up here and say what people's motives are, but I think the gentleman from Texas alluded to it earlier. There are a lot of politics involved in this one, Mr. Speaker, and of course, here we are now, we ultimately we have an 18-month extension. But we need to come together. This is just a perfect example, in the health care arena in particular, where we can and should come together in a bipartisan way to do things for the benefit of the American people to provide better health care. We like to tout that we have the greatest health care system in the world. Maybe we do. But sometimes I wonder, and clearly, I think there are things that we could do in a bipartisan way to improve it, and Dr. Burgess has mentioned it. He's talked about the payment formula, that flawed formula, in regard to paying our physicians, and so it's no surprise that not only are more and more of them unwilling to accept Medicare patients because they're not even being reimbursed enough to cover their expenses, there's no surprise to me when I picked up the Sunday newspaper, the Atlanta newspaper in my hometown of Marietta this past weekend, and there's this big full page ad where one of the chain drugstores is now opening up these clinics, manned and ``womanned'' by men and women who are not MD's, but they're nurse practitioners. They're very skilled. They're trained. They certainly are dedicated, and the fees for seeing them are anywhere from $60 to $75 for a 15- or 20-minute visit. So what you're seeing is so much of medicine is not an MD providing the care. It's these situations like these drop-in clinics in chain drugstores. I don't think this is the way it should be, and I think we can do things like enact tort reform to take some of the pressure off of the physicians so that there's not so much defensive medicine. And of course, that runs up the costs tremendously. Tort reform is hugely important. Dr. Burgess and I, Mr. Speaker, have worked very hard in the 5 years into our 6 years as Members of this body trying to get that passed. We have been trying to get association health plans where people can come together in an industry and purchase health insurance across State lines, free of all these mandates of the individual States. Fifty different States have all these mandates on health insurance policies that drive up the premiums. I thank Dr. Burgess for taking the time tonight on our first day back in this second session of the 110th to continue to talk about health care. This is clearly a passion of his. It's certainly a passion of mine, not just physician Members of this body, but a lot of very, very good, experienced Members who are concerned with this. Before I yield the time back to my colleague and I continue hopefully during the remaining time tonight to engage in a colloquy with him on these issues, I think one of the most important things we could do and we could do it now is to enact electronic medical records, say a complete fully integrated system and incentivize doctors. We can do it through the tax code to give them an opportunity, particularly the small group practices, the primary care physicians so they can get electronic medical records. This would clearly save a lot of the money that Dr. Burgess was talking about. My friend has done some good work on that in his committee assignment on Energy and Commerce, Health Subcommittee, as well as the ranking member there, my colleague from Georgia, Representative Nathan Deal. We'll continue the discussion.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And I stand today in full support of this 18-month extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program, and also the 6-month mitigation of the payment cut to our physicians under Medicare. But, Madam Speaker, let me say in regard to that 6-month mitigation, we have done this the whole time that I've been in this Congress, the past 5 years, with a Band-Aid. We're literally doing it this time with a spot Band-Aid, and first thing you know we're going to do a 3-month mitigation and a month-to-month mitigation. It's time to end this flawed sustainable growth rate, just like it's time to end the alternative minimum tax that was not indexed for inflation. They're both flawed, and we need to strike both of them dead permanently. In regard to the Children's Health Insurance Program, Madam Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Democratic Conference spoke a little earlier, talking about certain children are going to lose their coverage during this 18-month extension. Well, certain children should lose their coverage if their families make up to 300 percent of the Federal poverty level, which is about $65,000 a year, and it crowds out those children from needy families who are not being covered. So this extension, I want to commend my colleague from Georgia, Nathan Deal, and Ranking Member Barton. This is their bill, and this is exactly what we need to do. We need to make sure we have 90 percent coverage saturation and those children up to 250 percent of the poverty level before we consider anything else. I support this extension.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also want to thank Chairman Filner and Mr. Buyer, Senators Isakson and Chambliss, but also my Democratic colleagues. The chairman mentioned those, John Lewis, Hank Johnson, David Scott and others, but Tom Price and I introduced this bill, H.R. 4143, many months ago, but we had unanimous support of the Georgia delegation on both sides of the aisle, and as we should, Madam Speaker, because this is the VA's number one priority for authorization in fiscal year 2008 veterans budget. So I am very pleased. I know this is the 11th hour, but thank goodness, because of the leadership on both sides of the aisle and in both bodies, this is coming to fruition. As Chairman Filner pointed out, there are ADA requirement issues. There are patient privacy issues. There are female veterans issues. So this is a hugely important project, and I thank my colleagues for making this happen.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and this issue is so important, H.R. 1216, and I certainly rise to support it. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Barton from Texas and Chairman Dingell, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Rush and others for bringing it forward. Madam Speaker, when I was in the Georgia general assembly serving in the State senate several years back, I became so involved in teen driving issues. I was an OB/GYN physician, and some of the youngsters that I had delivered, all of the sudden, they were 15, 16 years old, and some of them killed tragically in automobile accidents just simply because they weren't safe. They didn't have the proper training, and so these issues are so hugely important. I became aware of this bill when a couple from my district came to me in Washington several months ago, and their son, their 4-year-old son, had been tragically killed by a vehicle backing over him. And you know, you can't bring these lives back, of course we can't, but this kind of legislation and bringing this kind of safety to help prevent maybe my grandchildren, somebody else's child from going through a tragic situation like that, from which the family never recovers. So, again, to be here today to offer a few words of support for H.R. 1216, the things like automatic power window reversal, rearward visibility, this bill addresses safety risks which have already resulted in the deaths of so many children in this country. So we can't bring them back, but we can help protect our young people in the future, and I strongly support it.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the City of Buchanan, Georgia, on the occasion of its 150th anniversary. The City of Buchanan, which is located in the southwest corner of Georgia's 11th Congressional District, was incorporated on December 22, 1857. Named after former President James Buchanan, Buchanan, Georgia, has served as the county seat of Haralson County since its incorporation back in 1857. As Americans, we celebrate the role of history in our daily lives, and we strive to preserve the heritage that has shaped us both as a people and as a Nation. Buchanan is truly a living example of that heritage, a city that is small in population, but abundant in heart, and that represents Georgia's warm and welcoming character so well. Madam Speaker, Georgians take great pride in celebrating the traditions of our communities. The growth, rebirth and preservation of these historic towns are important to us all, for these communities are the very backbone of our great Nation. And so, therefore, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating the citizens of Buchanan on the city's sesquicentennial celebration of 150 years.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight with a heavy heart, saddened by the loss of not only a constituent, but also one of the most important figures in Georgia government in the modern history of our State. Thomas Bailey Murphy of Bremen, Georgia, Speaker Tom Murphy, was called home to be with the Lord last night at 10 p.m. A native of Haralson County, Speaker Murphy was born on March 10, 1924, to Leta Jones and William Harvey Murphy. A graduate of Bremen High School and North Georgia College, a young Tom Murphy heard the call of his country and he enlisted in the Navy during World War II. He served in the Pacific theater from 1943 to 1946. Upon his return home from World War II, Tom Murphy married the love of his life, Agnes Bennett, with whom he shared his life until her death in 1982. Soon after their marriage, Tom Murphy graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law. And then, Madam Speaker, in 1960, he followed in his brother's footsteps, winning election to the Georgia House of Representatives. In his first seven terms in the legislature, he had the opportunity to serve as the Governor's floor leader and as speaker pro tem until being elected as Speaker of the House in 1973. As Speaker of the Georgia House from 1974 to 2002, he served not only with distinction but also as the longest-serving State House Speaker throughout this entire country. While Speaker Murphy never forgot his rural roots or his constituency, he also recognized the importance of strengthening our entire State and fostering growth and economic opportunity in the capital city of Atlanta. During his tenure, Speaker Murphy fought for funding and sponsored the construction of the Georgia World Congress Center as well as the Georgia Dome, the largest cable-supported dome stadium in the entire world. Speaker Murphy also pushed for improved and increased funding for urban transit and suburban roads and freeways. He had the foresight to realize the need to invest not only in destination infrastructure but also in the roads, the buses and trains to get people there. While Speaker Murphy was a great advocate of his State and of all Georgians, to say he was partisan would be an understatement, Madam Speaker. He believed firmly in the principles of the old-guard Georgia Democratic Party, and he was vehemently loyal to those principles, his party and his members, even to his own personal and political detriment. In 2000, after over 40 years of service to his district, Speaker Murphy won by a narrow margin of about 500 votes in his Republican-trending west Georgia district. And yet later that year, during the decennial redistricting process, Speaker Murphy refused to make his district more Democratic and thus safer, refusing to risk the majorities of his fellow party members that served in contiguous districts and counties. So in the following election, Madam Speaker, he narrowly lost his seat, but he did so with his conscience intact because he remained loyal to his principles to the end. During my time in the Georgia senate, I had many opportunities to see Speaker Murphy in action. Though I certainly did not always agree with him, I always respected him, recognizing that above all, he exemplified the scriptural exhortation to ``let your yea be yea and your nay, nay.'' Though his final years were made very difficult by incapacitating stroke, I know that in his heart and in his mind, he knew that he had served his State and the people of Georgia to the best of his ability; and, indeed, he served them and us with distinction. While I know that his son, Michael, daughters, Martha, Marjorie, Mary Jane, and all of the grandchildren will miss him dearly, they know that he longed for that reunion with his beloved Agnes. And I have no doubt that when he took his last breath, and he left this world, he was greeted with the words, Thy race is run. Welcome home, My good and faithful servant.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the previous speaker that this body and the other body passed a spending bill for our veterans increasing by $4 billion over 3 months ago, and the President made very clear, emphatically stating that he was ready to sign that bill to get this money to our veterans, and the Democratic leadership has made a decision, for whatever reason, not to send that bill to the President. So I think it's important to point that out. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill in its present form. In regard to the rule, I can't expound and do any better than the comments that the senior Republican long-term member of the Rules Committee has just outlined, the gentleman from Florida. That stack of 11 bills in this omnibus sitting in front of the gentleman from Florida is almost as large as the Internal Revenue Code, which I understand is as thick as nine Bibles. Mr. Speaker, that's probably as thick as at least six Bibles, and every rule has been waived. And all this business about earmark reform, it makes a total mockery of that. So, Mr. Speaker, from the standpoint of the rule, absolutely I am opposed to it. We need earmark reform. I have submitted legislation to cut earmarks by 50 percent immediately and then 1 percent of discretionary spending in the subsequent year and to say that no Member of this body, no matter how powerful, should have a larger bite at the apple in regard to Member-directed initiatives, or what the general public, who's so outraged at that process, knows as pork and/or earmarks. In regard to the bill itself, my colleagues, I'm sure, hopefully on both sides of the aisle, will be opposed to this omnibus because there's not one penny, Mr. Speaker, not one penny of money for our troops in Iraq. That in itself is a reason why absolutely I would be opposed to this omnibus. But, Mr. Speaker, there's more. There is much more when we look into the weeds and finally see some of the things in these bills. Last year this body voted to strike language from the energy and water bill that would not allow the Corps of Engineers to update manuals in regard to how they control water releases from certain dams in the Southeast where we are suffering from a severe drought, Mr. Speaker. And yet this same language now is stuck in on the Senate side, and it's in this omnibus bill that would prohibit the Corps of Engineers from updating these 25-year-old manuals, making the drought in the Southeast worse than it has ever been. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the fact that in this body last year when we voted to remove that language from those bills, Speaker Pelosi voted to remove the language; Majority Leader Hoyer voted to remove the language; Appropriations Chairman Obey voted to remove the language; Minority Leader Boehner voted to remove the language; and every subcommittee chairman on the Appropriations Committee, the so-called cardinals on the Democratic side, voted to remove that language. Now it's in there sort of air-dropped on the Senate side. There are other things in here, Mr. Speaker, that I am so much opposed to. There's increased funding for title X, almost $17 million for Planned Parenthood and abortion providers, but there's no increased funding for critical abstinence education, which goes a long way to ensure that abortion services wouldn't be needed, Mr. Speaker. There is $2.9 billion in here, Mr. Speaker, to provide for security on our southern border, to build that fence that this body has called for; yet there are all kinds of restrictions. In fact, the committee says 15 conditions have to be met before this money can be spent on 300 or 400 miles of fencing on our southern border that we so desperately need, and at the same time there's millions of dollars in this omnibus, Mr. Speaker, that provides legal defense funds to defend illegal immigrants who are in this country. I just don't quite understand the logic of that, Mr. Speaker. I am sure my colleagues are as confused as I am over this gimmick of advanced appropriations. But how does this body say that we are going to spend $2.4 billion additional money on Labor-HHS and say that we are not going to count it against this year's appropriation, that it's going to be counted in 2009, this so-called advanced appropriation? Is it an emergency, Mr. Speaker, to spend $100 million to provide security at the upcoming Republican and Democratic National Conventions? Is that, my colleagues, what we would call money that needs to be spent in an emergency? And last but not least, Mr. Speaker, I put language in an appropriation bill that would not allow funding for States that mandate that our little girls in the fourth and fifth grade, our 9-, 10-, 11- year-old children, could not attend public school unless they receive a shot against human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted disease, not a communicable disease like measles, mumps, and whooping cough. Unfortunately, this funding is allowed in this omnibus, but my language is removed. So for many, many reasons, my colleagues, vote ``no'' against the rule and vote ``no'' against this bill when it comes to us in its present form.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the conference report for Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, and I would certainly like to commend Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member Hunter for standing strong throughout conference negotiations and representing us so well during these proceedings. Madam Speaker, I think it proves, as my colleague from Washington just stated, Mr. Hastings, that we can, when we put our heads together and have that cooperative spirit, we can do things in a bipartisan manner, and I commend Chairman Skelton and his excellent staff for making that happen. Certainly, I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Neil Abercrombie, as well as Ranking Member Jim Saxton, as well as all the conferees for the hard work in getting this legislation before the floor. The staff of the Armed Services Committee, as I say, deserves our thanks for their tireless efforts in support of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are bravely defending us both at home and abroad. Madam Speaker, as we move toward adjournment, it's essential that we pass this legislation, which covers an extensive range of issues that are so vitally important to our Armed Services. From a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise to an additional $17.6 billion for MRAP vehicles, mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, this legislation addresses the most pressing needs of our troops during a most trying time for America. I am further pleased that the bill provides for an increase of 13,000 Army and 9,000 Marine personnel, active duty personnel, and at a time when our Guard and Reserve forces have been so heavily utilized, it appropriately includes Guard empowerment provisions. Madam Speaker, although I do remain concerned about the overall underfunding of missile defense and the lack of full funding for our European missile defense site, I am thankful that the conferees significantly restored funds for certain critical missile defense programs. I am also proud, as my colleague from Washington State made note, that the Wounded Warrior legislation is included in this conference report, which will help our injured heroes as they face challenges encountered on their long road to recovery. Additionally, the legislation authorizes $189.4 billion in supplemental funding to support current operations in the global war on terror, and it fittingly recognizes the dangers posed by a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. By providing increased funding for force protection and for the repair and replacement of battle-worn equipment, this legislation authorizes the necessary supplemental funding to give our deployed soldiers the resources they need to continue taking the fight to the terrorists. I am further very pleased with the work the committee has done this year to authorize funding of 20 F-22 Raptors, in line with the current multiyear contract. The F-22, Madam Speaker, is the world's most capable fighter, and these funds will go a long way towards providing stability for our forces and ensuring that America does maintain air dominance for the foreseeable future. Madam Speaker, section 1257 of the conference report affirms the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, acronym WHINSEC, as an invaluable education and training facility which the Department of Defense should continue to utilize in order to promote security cooperation with Latin American countries. I proudly serve, along with my colleague on the House Armed Services Committee, Ms. Sanchez from California, we serve on the Board of Visitors for WHINSEC, and have for a number of years, Madam Speaker, and know how important that is, important for my colleagues to remember that WHINSEC may be the only medium we have to engage future military and political leaders of these Latin American countries. If we were not to engage with these nations in this way, the void created would be filled by countries with different values than our own regarding democracy and, yes, human rights, countries such as Venezuela and China, whose influence in the region is growing. Therefore, I am so proud that Congress stands behind WHINSEC. Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to again recognize our fallen soldiers. A brave young man from my district who heroically gave his life for our country, Sergeant Paul Saylor from Bremen, Georgia, his remains were not able to be viewed for a final time upon being returned to his family 2 years ago. Last year's authorization bill, H.R. 5122, included a provision which requires that all medical personnel be trained in remains preservation to ensure that these fallen heroes get the dignity and respect they deserve. This is the least that we can do for the families as they are grieving so much. I would like to thank my colleagues for following up on this measure by honoring my request for a report on this program in this year's bill, and I want to certainly take an opportunity to thank Paul's parents, Jamie and Patti Saylor, for their help in this regard. Madam Speaker, there is much to be proud of in this bill. I again commend Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their efforts to keep this bill focused on the needs of the warfighter. In this spirit, I urge all my colleagues in these days ahead, let's abandon any defeatist rhetoric and any partisan bickering which only serves to demoralize our troops and, yes, to embolden the enemy. We must stand united in providing our troops every needed resource and send a strong message to these terrorists and our allies that the resolve of our great Nation is stronger than it has ever been. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote in favor of the rule and the conference report.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise today in support of House Resolution 847, which recognizes the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith. While there may be some who bristle at the idea of the House of Representatives considering this resolution or any similar resolution, I would note that though the first amendment states that the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, the first amendment also states that the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Mr. Speaker, our Founders had the foresight to realize that a state- run church of America would do more harm to the perseverance of faith and the hearts of our citizenry, and it would certainly lead to irreconcilable division. However, at the same time, the Founders and writers of the Constitution also recognized that the success of this great American experiment, this historic social contract, was contingent upon a moral and a religious people and the recognition that we had inalienable rights, because those rights are given to us by our Creator. If these rights are given to us by a Creator, then no human being can take them away. And this is the foundation of our system of justice, the foundation of our American society. And so today we take just a few minutes to consider this resolution which respects the faith and the beliefs of a vast majority of this country and a plurality of the world, stating that, and I quote: ``Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible.'' So I hope that no Member of this Congress, no individual anywhere takes offense to this debate and this resolution, because none is intended. This resolution simply offers recognition to a faith and the values of that faith which has sustained hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, not just the United States. And after more than two millennia, we once again approach the commemoration of a birth that many recognize as holy but all recognize as historic. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that just this past weekend I took my granddaughters, 9-year-old, almost 10 they would want me to say, identical twin granddaughters with my wife, and we were in Representative Meeks' great City of New York and we had an opportunity to take our grandchildren to the Radio City Music Hall to see that annual Christmas performance. That 1\1/2\ hour performance, Mr. Speaker, was absolutely wonderful and a great tribute to the city, a great tribute to Representative Meeks and all of our colleagues from New York. In that performance, Mr. Speaker, they had a nativity scene, the most beautiful nativity scene that I have had the opportunity to witness. And it meant so much to my granddaughters for me to explain about our Christian faith and heritage. So if it is good enough for New York City and Radio City Music Hall, it is good enough for this Congress. And, by golly, I want to encourage all my speakers to support the resolution of Representative King from Iowa. He was detained because of inclement weather; otherwise, he would be on this floor. But I commend and thank my colleague from New York, Representative Meeks, and also my colleague from Texas, Representative Poe, for allowing me time.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 215, legislation that will designate a National Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Automated External Defibrillator Awareness Week. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, and would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Randy Kuhl of New York, for advancing this legislation to help educate the American people about the critical difference cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator training can make in our country. This legislation has been dear to Mr. Kuhl's heart after a young man in his area, Louis Acompora, died from a blunt impact to the chest while playing lacrosse. Had an automated external defibrillator been available at the time, his life might have been saved. I commend Mr. Kuhl's success as a New York State Senator in working with Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg from Long Island to advance the New York State law requiring public schools to have at least one such device on school grounds. His hard work has helped save over 35 lives in New York State in the five years since the law's enactment. Mr. Speaker, heart disease kills more people in our Nation every year than any other medical condition. Sudden cardiac arrest is one of the most time sensitive cardiac conditions for which immediate attention is vital. If cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation are not applied within 5 minutes after sudden cardiac arrest, there is virtually no chance of survival. Approximately 325,000 Americans suffer sudden cardiac arrest each year and more than 95 percent die before ever reaching the hospital. Mr. Speaker, these statistics are staggering. Sadly, if more Americans were trained in performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation and in using automated external defibrillators, many of these lives could have been saved. Communities with comprehensive automated external defibrillator programs have improved survival rates from only 5 percent to over 40 percent. Mr. Speaker, this is why it is so critical that we pass H. Con. Res. 215. Having a week dedicated to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Automated External Defibrillator awareness will increase the profile of this devastating disease, and most importantly, will help save lives. I encourage all my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Republican motion to instruct the conferees on the 2008 Department of Defense authorization act. Madam Speaker, as we adjourned for the Thanksgiving recess, we witnessed something remarkable. We witnessed the Democratic majority, in working to mollify their liberal base one more time before the Thanksgiving recess, come to the floor pounding their fist declaring that we must not give our troops additional funding without congressional mandated withdrawal guidelines. They recycled the same old rhetoric, seemingly oblivious to the facts on the ground. Thankfully, the direction of our efforts in the global war on terror is being guided by General Petraeus and others who do understand the momentum that we have garnered; that violence between Sunnis and Shiites has nearly disappeared from Baghdad, with terrorist bombings down 77 percent; that attacks against United States soldiers have fallen to levels not seen since before the February 2006 bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra; that United States casualties in Iraq are at their lowest level since March of 2006; and that many military analysts, including some who are opposed to the war, have concluded that the United States and its allies are on the verge of winning in Iraq. Indeed, Madam Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Defense Authorization Appropriations Subcommittee just returned from Iraq, and he declared that the surge is finally working. I reference Mr. Murtha from Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, this is something the other side doesn't like to discuss, victory in the global war on terror. That is tough to squeeze in with the defeatist rhetoric recited to appease MoveOn.org and Code Pink. Another thing the Democratic majority never discusses are the consequences of failure, and they have been discussed this morning on our side. That is why this motion to instruct is so important, Madam Speaker. It is critical that the House accept Senate provision 1536 and recognize that failure in Iraq would mean a collapse of a democratic Iraqi Government, likely leading to mass killings and genocide in that nation; certainly emboldening al Qaeda; regional instability; Iran and Syria determining the course of Iraq's future; and Israel being pushed into the Mediterranean Sea, just as Ahmadinejad called for. These are the consequences of defeat and these are the reasons why Congress must commit to a strategy that will not leave a failed state in Iraq and why Congress must not pass, indeed, not pass legislation that risks demoralizing and undermining our military, as they are indeed on the verge of victory in Iraq. So, Madam Speaker, the Democrats are zero for 40 in trying to compel this precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. With this motion to instruct, I ask them for once to get on the right side. Join not just the Republicans, but, more importantly, our brave men and women in the military, and give victory a chance. Madam Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues, let's vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman from Washington, our friend, Representative Inslee, and of course Representative Nathan Deal. I am proud to be here to support this resolution, H.R. 710, in honor of our colleague, the late Dr. Norwood. Representative Inslee described the magnitude of the issue. I wasn't even aware that there were, as a physician, maybe I should be, but over 90,000 people who are on a waiting list, and a fourth of them each year get transplants, and only a very small number get a transplant from a living donor, as Representative Inslee pointed out. And of course Representative Deal just explained to us exactly what this cross-living donor program, how it would work. So it is an easy bill, Madam Speaker, to support for our late and dear friend and colleague, Dr. Charlie Norwood. Earlier this year we passed a bill honoring Dr. Norwood by naming a VA Medical Center in Augusta, Georgia, the heart of his congressional district, in honor of the great work that he did on behalf of our veterans. I think my colleagues, Madam Speaker, know that Charlie Norwood served as a dental officer in Vietnam, in combat, got two Bronze Stars, I think a medical combat award. He was a great spokesperson on behalf of our veterans. But also, in regard to health care, before I was even thinking about running for this great office that I hold now, Madam Speaker, Charlie Norwood had that Patient Bill of Rights. I think a lot of my colleagues would remember that. Madam Speaker, you indeed probably were here at that time. And so this is just another opportunity for us, not just to honor Dr. Norwood, but to realize that he worked so diligently on behalf of veterans issues and health care issues. So it's a great honor to be here today. And I'll tell you, on a personal note, my colleagues, Madam Speaker, I have a senior legislative assistant, Josh Waller, whose dad, Jerry, last year died while on a waiting list for a liver transplant. That was awfully painful for me to watch that happen to the dad of one of my great staff members. So this is a wonderful opportunity for us to do something really good for these people that Representative Deal, Representative Inslee described that are on these waiting lists, that suffer dialysis. And as Representative Deal pointed out, the Senate amendment just changed it a little bit so that other organs, other than kidneys, indeed, Dr. Norwood himself, as Representative Inslee pointed out, was the recipient of a lung transplant. Unfortunately, it did not work for him. But God bless him. And I'm proud to be here today to support this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1104, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong opposition to H.R. 4156, the so-called Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations of 2008, because in fact, Mr. Speaker, the bill should be called the Disorderly and Irresponsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. What we are debating tonight, disguised as a genuine bridge fund to sustain operations in the global war on terror, is nothing more than another defeatist measure intended to placate the Democrats' liberal base as we approach this Thanksgiving recess. The Democratic leadership apparently has decided it's more to stand with the Out of Iraq Caucus, MoveOn.org and Code Pink than with our brave men and women in uniform. Rather than funding our soldiers' needs and delivering a decisive blow to the terrorist campaign in Iraq, the Democrats are again conditioning the funding on a date certain for withdrawal. At a time of sustained progress by our forces, Mr. Speaker, it seems that what is great news for America and for our troops is consequently bad political news for a Democratic majority who has literally bet the farm on a defeatist agenda. Just last weekend, Prime Minister Maliki stated that violence between Sunnis and Shias has nearly disappeared from Iraq, disappeared from Baghdad, with terrorist bombings down 77 percent. The Washington Post reported that attacks against United States soldiers have fallen to levels not seen since the February 2006 bombing of the Shia shrine in Samarra. And an Investor's Business Daily article detailed that military analysts, including many who are opposed to the war, have concluded that the United States and its allies are on the verge of winning in Iraq. And, thankfully, United States casualties in Iraq are at their lowest level since March of 2006, Mr. Speaker. Now is not the time to risk impeding the progress we are making. Now is the time to continue building on the turnaround we have made, and to state unequivocally that we are on the verge of victory in Iraq and that we will finish the job. Mr. Speaker, we cannot give in to the terrorists' extremist views and sinister plans for the Middle East and the world. And we certainly should not send a message to the terrorists that such a capitulation will begin in 30 days and will wrap up by December of 2008. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on tying funds for our troops to a date certain withdrawal from Iraq. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2156, the so- called ``Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations of 2008.'' Because, in fact, this bill is a ``disorderly and irresponsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.'' Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. What we are debating today-- disguised as a genuine bridge fund to sustain operations in the Global War on Terror--is nothing more than another defeatist measure intended to placate the Democrat's liberal base as we approach the Thanksgiving recess. The Democratic leadership has decided it is more important to stand with the ``Out of Iraq Caucus,'' MoveOn.org and Code Pink than with our brave men and women in uniform. Rather than funding our soldiers' needs and delivering a decisive blow to the terrorist campaign in Iraq, the Democrats are again conditioning the funding on a date-certain withdrawal. At a time of sustained progress by our forces, Mr. Speaker, it seems that what is great news for America and for our troops is consequently bad political news for the Democrat majority and their defeatist agenda. Mr. Speaker, a July New York Times editorial authored by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack stated ``We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. . . . The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in General David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.'' In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker spoke optimistically about the future of Iraq citing concrete progress. Acknowledging we still had a long way to go, they recognized we had achieved tactical momentum and were building momentum toward local reconciliation. Indeed, local Iraqis were turning against extremists. Last weekend Prime Minister al-Maliki stated that violence between Sunnis and Shi'ites has nearly disappeared from Baghdad, with terrorist bombings down 77 percent. The Washington Post reported that attacks against U.S. soldiers have fallen to levels not seen since before the February 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra. An Investor's Business Daily article detailed that military analysts--including many who are opposed to the war--have concluded that the U.S. and its allies are on the verge of winning in Iraq. And thankfully, U.S. casualties in Iraq are at their lowest level since March 2006. Now is not the time to risk impeding the progress we are making. Now is the time to continue building on the turn-around we have made and to state unequivocally that we are on the verge of victory in Iraq, and that we will finish the job. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues of the consequences of giving up on Iraq: the collapse of a democratic Iraqi government, likely leading to mass killings and genocide in the nation; an emboldened al-Qaeda; regional instability; Iran and Syria setting the course of Iraq's future; and Israel being pushed into the Mediterranean sea. The stakes are too high for political posturing. Ayman al-Zawahiri has said ``the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq.'' Mr. Speaker, we cannot give in to their extremist views and sinister plans for the Middle East and the world. And we certainly should not send a message to the terrorists that such a capitulation will begin in 30 days and will wrap up by December of 2008. Mr. Speaker, never have I been so glad that we've got General Petraeus leading our troops in Iraq and not the Democratic leadership of this house. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on tying funds for our troops to a date-certain withdrawal from Iraq. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, as we approach Veterans Day, I proudly rise to honor a Georgia native, Lieutenant General David Poythress, who has served the State of Georgia as our adjutant general since 1999. Two weeks ago, I attended the change of command ceremony for General Poythress as he stepped down from his post as commander of the Georgia National Guard. General Poythress's long and distinguished military career began at Emory University in Atlanta, where in 1967 he received his law degree, and he graduated as a distinguished military graduate of the Emory ROTC program. After graduation, Mr. Speaker, General Poythress served 4 years on active duty with the United States Air Force as a judge advocate officer, including 1 year as chief of military justice at Da Nang Air Force Base in Vietnam. Upon returning to civilian life, General Poythress remained in the Air Force Reserve, serving as a judge advocate officer in various positions of increasing responsibility. In 1991, General Poythress returned to active duty to oversee the reserve legal officers during Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. He was promoted to brigadier general in 1994, and to major general in July of 1999. It was in 1999 that General Poythress took over as the adjutant general of the State of Georgia, where he has commanded 12,000 personnel of the Georgia Army National Guard, the Georgia Air National Guard, and the Georgia State Defense Force now for nearly a decade. Mr. Speaker, in 2006, General Poythress became the first adjutant general in Georgia's 273-year history to wear a third star as a lieutenant general. And for the past 8 years, General Poythress has led Georgia's Guard through some historic changes, and our men and women have performed admirably under his leadership. Not only has General Poythress made a major impact on our Nation's military, but he has also been an irreplaceable asset, Mr. Speaker, to the State of Georgia. General Poythress spent much of his civilian career in public service to the citizens of our great State. He served first as deputy state revenue commissioner, then secretary of the State of Georgia, and finally, commissioner of labor in Georgia. Needless to say, General Poythress's retirement will leave huge shoes to fill in the State of Georgia. Over the past several years, Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed getting to know General Poythress and his lovely wife, Elizabeth, as personal friends, and I appreciate their singular dedication to our Guardsmen. Last year, Mr. Speaker, I even had the opportunity to travel to Iraq with the general, and we met with Georgia's 48th Brigade Combat Team. I know it must have been a joy for General Poythress to see his troops and General Rhodheaver serving our Nation so honorably, but also a painful time, as he remembered the 26 fallen soldiers from the 48th who were lost in some of the most dangerous combat in the Sunni Triangle outside of the city of Baghdad. Through all of the struggles, including the difficult task of assisting Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, General Poythress has led Georgia's Guard with the strength of a commander and the heart, Mr. Speaker, of a public servant. And so I ask my colleagues tonight, join me in honoring Lieutenant General David Poythress for his dedicated service to defending the State of Georgia and the United States of America.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, as all Members rise to salute our veterans just 5 days from now, I'm appalled that the Democratic majority is holding these veterans hostage by combining a bill that we passed in this House 5 months ago to increase funding for our veterans, as they pointed out in regard particularly to health care, $6 billion, and the President is ready to sign that bill. But, no, the Democratic majority wants to hold that bill and our veterans hostage so they can pass a bloated-up, pork-laden, Health and Human Services-Labor bill that increases spending over the President's request by $9 billion. I think this is a deplorable thing, and I have called for the end of it in House Resolution 786, which would change the rules of the House so that no House could ever combine our MilCon-Veterans Administration budget again with any other appropriations bill. It would have to pass as a stand-alone bill. Let's quit playing politics with our veterans.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona's yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman bringing up a point of order against the rule. And to take away that opportunity to raise a point of order against the conference report, Madam Speaker, where there are air-dropped earmarks, in this case I think the gentleman said nine, I still remember the calls from the Democratic leadership, led, of course, by Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, when the Democrats won control of the House by virtue of the elections almost exactly a year ago, that this would be the most open, honest, and transparent Congress in history. Madam Speaker, I just want to give you a quote from Speaker Pelosi promising fiscal restraint if Democrats win. And here's the quote: ``Breaking with many Democrats, Ms. Pelosi also spoke out against earmarking billions of dollars for home-State projects, a practice she calls a `monster' that hurts Congress.'' And here is what she said: `` `I'd get rid of all of them. None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has . . . and the fiscal irresponsibility of it.' '' And that was in the Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2006. Another quote from Madam Speaker Pelosi: ``We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks and will give the American people the leadership they deserve,'' Nancy Pelosi, press release, December 12, 2006. Madam Speaker, this is absurd. And, again, I commend the gentleman from Arizona for calling attention to this. Where is the openness? Where is the transparency? What good do we have in regard to a point of order so that we can look at these conference reports? Where are the 2 days that we are supposed to have to look at them? So it is taken away from us. What good does it do if the Rules Committee waives all points of order? So I commend the gentleman. He's absolutely right. We need to have some true transparency in this body.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. That's right. And that means the ones that are already addicted, the poor grandparents and parents of these children that can't break that habit, and some of them, Mr. Speaker, and I know my colleagues appreciate this, are the poor members of society, for some reason that have developed that smoking habit. And we are going to put the burden on them, plus 22 million. And some of those 22 million, this is the irony of this pay-for that the Democrats have come up with, some of these very children, maybe some of the 5,000 that I delivered who are old enough to go buy cigarettes, they will have to be addicted to help pay for this massive expansion so that their younger brothers and sisters can get health insurance funded by the Federal Government. It makes absolutely no sense. I really appreciate Dr. Price bringing this leadership hour to us as part of the Truth Squad, the ongoing Truth Squad, because the truth just needs to be told. And I think the important thing for our colleagues to understand and anybody within shouting distance to know that Republican Members of this body, and our President, George W. Bush, is all for children and providing health care for children. If he wasn't, would we be spending $35 billion a year on the Medicaid program for children's health insurance? Absolutely we would not. The President even has recommended that because it is estimated that 750,000 children, we cover 6,750,000 in that income bracket that my colleague from New Jersey was talking about, the 100 to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level have fallen through the cracks, so the President said, look, let's increase this spending $25 billion over 5 years, let's increase it 20 percent and a little bit more money in there for inflation. But, instead, the Democrats come with a bill to increase the spending by 140 percent to $60 billion. In fact, in their original bill, the CHAMP Act, they wanted to increase it to $90 billion. As Dr. Price points out, in this new bill the $60 billion version, that is covering 53 percent of all children in this country either on the Medicaid or the SCHIP program. Well, there is something wrong with that. There is no question about it. We don't need to be paying the health insurance for children from families who are making $62,000 a year. In some instances in the State of New York, it may be up to $83,000 a year. That's what we're railing against, this unnecessary, massive expansion. We Republicans and the President want to renew this program. It's a good program. We need to increase the funding. The President possibly would be willing to even go a little more than a 20 percent increase. But the only justification the Democrat majority can have for this type of increase is just what was already alluded to, a march toward a single-payer national health insurance program. In some of their rhetoric in regard to Medicare and wanting to start covering people at age 55, you see where the gap gets smaller and smaller, and then all of a sudden you're covering from cradle to grave everybody in this country run by the government. So I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my colleague from Georgia, my colleague from Cobb County, for leading this time. I know there are a number of other speakers that are here that want to weigh in on this. We just need to keep fighting. We will get this bill right. But we need to do it in a bipartisan way.