Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman, my good friend from Texas. It is indeed an honor to be a part of this special leadership hour to share a little time with my colleagues, of course, Judge Carter leading the hour; Chris Shays, the gentleman from Connecticut, 18 trips to the Middle East, to some extent in harm's way. I saw a couple of years ago, maybe it was 3 years ago, just happened to be channel surfing, watching C-SPAN. I guess I am an insomniac. There was Chris Shays having a town hall meeting talking to his constituents from Connecticut and taking some tough, the tough questions about this situation in the Middle East and why it was important and why he supported it. He outlined tonight the fact that he doesn't look at these things through rose-colored glasses. He understands that mistakes were made. We all do, but the mission is the mission. He went on and talked about this surge and why it's so important that every Member on both sides of the aisle give it a chance to work. Judge Carter said the same thing, pointed out that this surge of 30,000 troops wasn't even complete until the beginning of July. Yet, many of our colleagues, unfortunately, it seemed like most of them on the other side of the aisle, wanted to declare that the new way forward was a failure before it even started, before it had even begun. I remember back when I first came, I had the honor to come to this body with some of my colleagues that are here tonight on the floor, and people saying, well, you know, this mistake, the big mistake is we didn't put enough troops on the ground. I guess that's what General Shinseki had recommended. My Democrat colleagues kept pounding away, well, we didn't have enough troops. Then when the President, based really on the report of the Iraq Study Group, two of the most distinguished public servants in the Federal Government that any of us know, James Baker, Lee Hamilton, a Republican and a Democrat, came and said, you know, we need a surge of troops, that's exactly what the President did. And then my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle, most of them, not all, said, too little, too late. How do you satisfy some folks? I listened very carefully, of course, to my good friend and colleague, a freshman, but he seemed so much more experienced, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis), talking about if we lose, they win. He is absolutely right. That just is so simple but yet so profound, and I really compliment the gentleman from Tennessee making his first trip and having that insight, that wisdom we all pray for. That's what we need for us to win. Indeed, this is tough; it's not easy. But I heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle during the 5-minute remarks tonight, I heard the gentlelady from California say it was unconscionable that the President is playing politics with the war in Iraq; yet she, as a cofounder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, and many of her colleagues voted in favor before the August recess of every one of these, let's see if we can tie General Petraeus' hands behind his back. So, surely they don't want us to do poorly in Iraq. Surely not. I don't suggest that. But I just remind them that this Commander in Chief, I may not agree with him on every single thing. I think the issue of stem cell research is something I support him on. Some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle do not. His thoughts about a comprehensive immigration reform that includes what I think is amnesty, I don't support him on. Some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle do. But I can I think in the final analysis, this President, it may take 25 years, it may take 50 years, but I believe people will look back and say thank God that this man was in this place at this time after 9/11 and had the courage to stand up to finally say, you know, double-dog daring and triple-dog daring doesn't work. Mr. Davis talked about the marine barracks and the USS Cole and the hostages in Iran for the 400 and something days, the 52 hostages. This President, this Commander in Chief had the courage to stand strong. Now, my colleague just mentioned I had gotten back from Iraq, my fourth trip. I will probably never catch Mr. Shays. But each and every trip, honestly, I think I learn more and more. I want my colleagues to understand that. These trips, I hope the American people will listen. These trips are bipartisan. We go and, you know, we hear the facts. And the old saying, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. But I feel very strongly that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are going to come back and come to us as required by law, which we insisted on September 15, at least by that date, maybe a little bit before that date, and give us an accurate, fair, balanced report. They are not going to try to paint this picture too bright. They are going to be accurate. I have said all along, we need to wait for that report before we all try to become 535 commanders in chief, many of us, including myself, who are not even veterans. So I was very encouraged, I said to my colleague, Representative Carter, on my trip, I think the troops are strong, absolutely. As Representative Shays said, they get weary, the families get weary. The American public is a little impatient. I understand that. War fatigue does set in. But this is not the time to give up. This is the time to be tough, stand strong and give victory a chance, because Mr. Davis said, if we don't, they win. The consequences of that are unfathomable. As I conclude my remarks, I also want to say to a group of marines from my district, NAS Atlanta, deployed this morning, some of them for the third time. This is the ``Red Dogs'' HMLA-773, a squadron of 255 marines. They are helicopter guys, Mr. Speaker, and they are light attack helicopters. They are going to be in a situation there at the al Assad Air Base. The President just made the trip over Labor Day weekend to meet with the troops. That's where they are going. I saw them with their families, with their wives, with their little infant children. In one case, a little baby 2 weeks old was there in his mother's arms. There were cousins, there were aunts, there were uncles, and there were brothers and sisters and grandparents. It humbled me to stand among these heroes as I talked with them and told them how much, how deeply I think Members on both sides of the aisle appreciate their dedicated service to this country. I wish them Godspeed and hope they will come back safe and sound to their loved ones. But not one of them wavered, even though this may have been their second or third deployment. They are still strong, and that's the same thing that I saw when I went to Iraq on this recent trip. God bless them. Let's hang in there for a little while longer. Then we are going to hear from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on September 15, and it will be an encouraging bit of news.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I attempted to offer an amendment to H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, to prevent possible waste and maintain appropriate management of our government expenses. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the Secretary of Energy to contract with the National Academy of Public Administration to conduct a study for assessing management practices for research, development and demonstration programs at the Department. My amendment would simply prohibit funds in the bill to the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA-E, within the Department of Energy, until the study has been completed and it makes a recommendation that we do establish ARPA-E. However, the Rules Committee would not accommodate my amendment and refused to make it in order. Without this amendment, we are shooting in the dark. We are authorizing $300 million for fiscal year 2008 that may not be necessary. This is not a good way to manage the people's tax money. If the majority is going to gamble like this, we might as well put the whole Federal Treasury on green double zero and just hope for the best. I have another concern, and that's about a new portfolio standard. The renewable portfolio standard in this bill calls for 20 percent renewable by the year 2020, and it will not include any nuclear. Well, the Southern Company, in my district, provides about 12 to 15 percent of their power by nuclear, but, yet, that cannot be included as a renewable. So we are projecting a wind farm off the coast of Georgia bigger than Cape Wind in Massachusetts, and that would only produce 1 percent toward this renewable standard. It's almost an impossible standard to meet, if you do not let us include nuclear as a renewable source, which, surely, it is. Basically, the compliance penalty for not meeting this standard, for the Southern Company in my district, would be $745 million. This legislation is nothing more than a backhanded attempt to ease our Nation into a carbon trade scheme, and it victimizes Georgia by making us a donor State. I ask my colleagues to vote down this rule and vote against the underlying legislation.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in recognition of all the hard work the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, and their staffs, have put in on behalf of our Nation on the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2008--and in gratitude for their work on behalf of the 11th District of Georgia. And I would like to commend Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Young for their efforts on behalf of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are so bravely defending us at home and abroad. Mr. Chairman, in its current form, this appears to be legislation that--although not perfect--does a fine job covering a wide range of priorities that are vitally important to our Armed Services. While regrettably cutting funding for both missile defense and future combat systems, the bill does appropriately include an across-the-board 3.5 percent pay raise and provisions addressing both Guard and Reserve readiness concerns. This bill also provides much-needed funds to grow the Army--by 7,000 soldiers--and the Marine Corps--by 5,000 Marines. Our House colleagues also did a good job providing funding for many important programs which are our military's top priorities. Chief among these, Mr. Chairman, is the F-22 Raptor. I am particularly encouraged by the work the Appropriations Committee has done to fund F-22 procurement this year, as this aircraft is vital to our Nation's defense. This bill contains $3.153 billion for 20 F-22 Raptor aircraft as part of the multi-year procurement strategy of 60 F- 22s over the next three years. This will go a long way toward providing stability for the program and ensuring that America maintains air dominance for the foreseeable future. Further, Mr. Chairman, as we fight the global war on terror, the United States must without question continue to modernize and strengthen our ability to support our men and women in harm's way. Maintaining our Nation's airlift capabilities is critical to this mission, and I would like to applaud the Committee for their recognition of this by including funding for the modernization of the C-5 fleet, in line with the Air Force's program of record. The Committee also responsibly recognizes the importance of developing life-saving innovations to benefit our war-fighters. Accordingly, $2.5 million dollars was included for the research and development of BioFoam Protein Hydrogel, which is manufactured in my district. BioFoam has the potential to save lives on the battlefield by using an expanding, adhesive, foam sealant to stop uncontrollable bleeding from internal wounds where tourniquets cannot be applied. Additionally, I am grateful that the Committee worked with me to provide funding for the Covert Waveform Program and for the development of Active/Smart Packaging for combat feeding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to again thank my colleagues for their hard work on this bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this modified closed rule on an appropriations bill. I had two very substantial amendments. The gentlelady from Connecticut, the distinguished chairman, said that she was going to accept my message amendment, my 1 percent cut, the $50,000 amendment that I brought on Tuesday. Of course, it was a dilatory amendment to try to get an opportunity to speak about the CHIP legislation that we knew was coming under a closed rule. But now I have two good amendments that were not made in order. One amendment would say no money in this bill would be allowed to grant food stamps or WIC money to anybody but United States citizens, not to immigrants, not to illegal immigrants. In some cases, the current law is very vague on that issue, a very substantive amendment that was not made in order. Finally, one other amendment, the Farm Service Agency in my district, in Gordon County, Calhoun, Georgia. In fact, that Farm Service Agency serves several counties and is doing a great job. I am denied the opportunity to argue on behalf of the citizens of Gordon County to keep that Farm Service Agency open. I am denied that by this modified closed rule. Regretfully, I have to stand and say that I am going to vote ``no'' on this rule, urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I want to thank Doc for yielding, the gentleman from Washington, I thank him very much. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern over the process, really, with which we are proceeding today on such an important matter. I recognize, as a member of the Science Committee, all the hard work that has gone into the America COMPETES Act to maintain and enhance our Nation's investment in the core STEM field, science, technology, engineering and mathematics. I believe that every member of our committee understands well that the future of our competitive economic edge rests in energizing our students at every level so they can pursue these fields of study. I want to commend my chairman, Mr. Gordon, and Ranking Member Hall. The bills that came before us in committee, all four bills, which we combined to be part of this conference report, I wholeheartedly support every step of the way. But I am very concerned with this conference report and the process, this lightning speed quickness that it has been brought to the floor of this House is absurd. I want to ask what is the rush. As ranking member of the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, I was very pleased to be picked as a conferee. I don't get that opportunity often in the 5 years that I have been a Member of this Congress. However, I was only made aware of the appointment Tuesday at 3:30 and, immediately, that the full conference committee would be holding the one and only formal meeting at 5 o'clock, an hour and a half later. This is a 470-page document that was not even available to conferees until 4:30 yesterday. I can't speak for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I don't want to go back home to Georgia next week and explain to my constituents that I spent, as Representative Hastings just said, $43 billion of their tax money on this measure that neither I nor most of the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle even had an opportunity to read, much less think about, before casting that vote. Further, I am extremely concerned with the cavalier attitude with which the majority appears bent on bringing this report to the floor today. The rules require, and I noticed that earlier the chairman of the Rules Committee was on the floor. She knows the rules require that it shall not be in order to consider a conference report that has not been available to Members, Delegates and Resident Commissioner in the Congressional Record for at least 3 calendar days. This report was filed yesterday, yet here we are today preparing to vote on a negotiated deal that is incorrectly being labeled as bipartisan. It was bipartisan in the House. It's not bipartisan in this conference report. It was only bipartisan to the extent we were invited to the party, but we were told to please just observe the dancing, and, by the way, don't eat any of the refreshments. The House did not use proxy votes, and yet that rule was also waived yesterday for the purpose of the formal conference. In addition, by a vote of 258-167, this House passed a motion to instruct conferees Tuesday to insist on the House authorization levels and to restore language on coal-to-liquids technology that had previously been accepted in this House by a vote of 264-154. Both instructions were ignored in conference. The coal-to-liquids technology provision was offered as an amendment in the conference yesterday and was voted down, despite the wishes of this whole House. What's the point of having rules if we're not going to follow them, and what's the use of holding votes if we are not going to adhere to their outcome and insist on a conference committee report? It's extremely unfortunate that again this week we are faced with the regrettable fruits of the Democratic leadership's rush to adjourn. My point is, this rush to get things done so you can go home and say that you accomplished this, and that's fine, but we've got to get it right and we have got to follow the rules. I mean, whether this side, we were in the majority, if we are guilty of doing the same thing on occasion, and maybe that was done on appropriations bills, but when you are dealing with something like this, and this is the policy in science education and trying to stimulate our young people and make this country more competitive in the global economy, we have got to get it right. When we have a bill coming out of the House that very generously authorizes almost $23 billion, $24 billion, $25 billion, and all of a sudden it's $43 billion, I have some real concerns about that. So it's extremely unfortunate that we are rushing this through, and it is the American public who is being left with an ever-increasing bill for this attitude. I asked my colleagues on the policy, or on the process. I am not talking about the issues that others have raised, but I am saying vote ``no'' to this rule and the underlying report.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to my colleague from Georgia who just spoke. I reference article II, section 2, of the Constitution where it says the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States and of a militia of the several States. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this legislation. It's rather outrageously being hailed by the Democrats as a readiness measure. Unfortunately, I fear this becomes nothing more than another attempt by this majority to pander to their liberal base and capitalize on public opinion polls by once again, this time a little more subtlety, attempting to draw down the troops in Iraq. This is because the readiness provision within this bill apply only to troops returning from Iraq. While a unit which just completed a 15- month tour in Iraq could not be deployed for 15 months, they could be deployed to combat in Afghanistan or, for that matter, Mr. Speaker, anywhere else in the world tomorrow without any regard for dwell time or readiness. Inexplicably, while we're engaged in a worldwide campaign against terror, this majority is only concerned with the readiness of the troops deploying to Iraq. Further, Mr. Speaker, by legislating the military deployment cycle, this bill would hamper the Department of Defense and bar the deployment of units that may be needed to reinforce our efforts in Iraq. Any constitutional scholar would tell you that these decisions, by their very nature, are the job of the Commander in Chief, not 435 would-be commanders in chief. Now, to get around these unfortunate facts, my friends on the other side of the aisle included in their bill a Presidential waiver. During consideration of the bill in committee, the dangerous implications it could have on our ability to fight and win this global war on terror were often dismissed by the Democrats, my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee, because of the presence of a waiver in the bill. In reality, Mr. Speaker, not only will this bill make it more difficult to prosecute the global war on terror, the waiver adds another layer of bureaucracy that could potentially disrupt the deployment preparation cycle. Mr. Speaker, all of this comes, unfortunately, during a time when we are just now starting to see marked progress and the momentum swinging in our favor in Iraq. Sadly, what is great news for America and for our troops is consequently bad news for the Democratic majority and this defeatist attitude. Just this week, a New York Times editorial authored by Mike O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack reflected this progress. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, these two men have steadily criticized the prosecution of the war and lack of progress in Iraq over the past 4 years. However, just this week they wrote, ``We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. Today, morale is high. The soldiers and the 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, they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.'' And thankfully, U.S. casualties in Iraq are the lowest in 8 months. Mr. Speaker, I know we are all passionate about this issue, and I care deeply about our troops and our Nation, and I know Mrs. Tauscher and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do as well. But now is not the time to risk impeding the progress that we are making. Now is the time to continue building on the turnaround we have made in the Anbar Province and the improvement we are seeing in Baghdad. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I was on the floor earlier today railing against the rule on this conference report, and I voted against the rule. The reason I did that is because I thought the rule and the bill, in fact, were rushed to the floor and didn't follow regular order. I thought it was appropriate that I voted against the rule. But I am here today to tell you that I am going to vote for this conference report. As a member of the Science Committee, and as a conferee, I am very proud of the work that has come through the Science Committee. I commend Chairman Gordon. I have been enjoyed being on the Science Committee. This is my second term serving on the Science Committee, first with Chairman Boehlert and now with Bart Gordon and serving with David Wu on the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee. I think we do great work on the Science Committee. Now, I typically associate myself with the more conservative, fiscally conservative members of the Republican conference. I know that some of my colleagues are going to vote against this conference report because they are concerned with the level of authorized spending, and they are maybe going to be a little surprised that I am voting in favor of it. My good friend back in Georgia, Joe McCutchen from Ellijay, Joe from Ellijay, I bet you Joe is watching right now cringing that I am going to vote for this bill that increases spending. It does authorize more spending than I am comfortable with, but I am very, very hopeful that when we get to the point of appropriating, I will be standing here asking, probably, for 1 or 2 percent cut in the amount of money that's appropriated, as I have done on most every spending bill that has been brought before the 110th Congress. But I think this is one of those situations where it's better that we spend a little too much than not quite enough, because we are at war in this country on an economic level. We are in an economic war. We are also in a shooting war, and we all know that. Every Member on both sides of aisle is committed to funding and supporting our troops, give them the equipment and what they need to win. Well, this is the same situation, the analogy is we need to give our soldiers, in this economic war, the equipment that they need to win. These soldiers are our students, particularly at the K-12 level. That's why it is important that we support this conference report. I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle will understand that. I hope that I will not lose my brand as being a strong fiscal conservative. Now, it was mentioned earlier that there are some score cards going around, and I will do pretty well on some of them, and I will do rather poorly on others. But we can't always worry about score cards. Like I say, in this situation, you got both sides kind of tugging at you one way or another. You have to, in the final analysis, do the right thing. We have members on this committee, on both sides of the aisle, I think there are five Ph.D.s, Dr. Baird, Dr. Ehlers, Dr. Bartlett, Dr. McNerney, Professor Lipinski, Dr. Gingrey. I am not a Ph.D. I am as much a doctor of art as I am a scientist. This is some serious business, as has already been stated. It's important for us to understand that. We can remain to our fiscal conservative principles, but in a situation like this, let's give our kids a chance to compete so we can win this global war, this economic war we are in. I am going to support this conference report. I encourage all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about policy and process. This is a situation where in the process the voices on both sides of the aisle have literally been shut down by bringing forward one of the most important pieces of legislation, I think, that I have had to discuss in the 4\1/2\ years that I have been a Member of this Congress. To say to the 11 position Members, almost equally divided between the Democrats and the Republicans, that we don't want to hear your voice, we don't want to hear some amendments that you might want to proffer because you have spent maybe 30 years, in my case maybe 25 years, 250 years in the aggregate of these 11 physicians' practicing medicine, no one being able to bring meaningful amendments to this issue. The other side has talked many times about the Republican former majority running up this massive debt and borrowing money from the Chinese. I am going to tell you something. This might be a time, Mr. Speaker, where the new majority should borrow this $75 billion massive expansion of the SCHIP program from the Chinese rather than getting the money off the backs of our Medicare recipients under Medicare Advantage, 8 million of whom choose that option, and many of those are the lowest income; and also encouraging 22 million people to become addicted to smoking so they could raise this revenue. The chairman says it is a modest increase in tax on a pack of cigarettes. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it doubles the tax on a pack of cigarettes. So we have a better idea. I am opposed to this bill in its present form, and I support the Republican motion to recommit, which is the Barton-Deal bill, which says, look, we will cover children that are slipping through the cracks. The CBO estimates, Mr. Speaker, that 600,000 children have fallen through the cracks. They are in that group 100 to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Under the Barton-Deal plan, we can cover them and we will do that. We don't need to increase the funding by $50 billion and start covering children who already have health insurance because their families make more than $100,000 a year.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, a little while earlier when my amendment was introduced to cut the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture by 1 percent, $50,000, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee stood up and said, well, that is nothing. That is just pocket change, and it is a dilatory motion. It is meaningless. It is so insignificant in the big scope of things when we are talking about an $18 billion discretionary spending bill on the Agriculture appropriations bill that we are dealing with. Well, I thank now my colleague from North Carolina for doubling that 1 percent cut to a 2 percent cut. So now I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are not talking about $50,000, we are talking about $100,000. And the chairman of the overall committee, Mr. Obey, is absolutely right. It is a small amount. But he is also right. I have several other amendments. He might call those pocket change as well and dilatory amendments. But the first thing you know when you add those up, Mr. Chairman, you are going to get to over $1 million. Now, on the floor of the House in this body inside the Beltway that may not be much money, but to the folks back in the 11th District of Georgia that I represent it becomes some significant money. But, again, the chairman is right. We are trying to make a point here. And I hope not just our colleagues in the Chamber are listening, and I know they are, but I hope the American people are listening as well. Because we do want to make a point, and that is what we are doing with Mr. McHenry's amendment to double the cut to 2 percent on this small section, that is what we are doing in my base amendment with the 1 percent cut. We are saying, look, if you want to bring forth a bill, as you intend to do later this week, the so-called CHAMP Act, to massively increase spending that violates your own new PAYGO rules by $70 billion, as the ranking member of the Budget Committee just pointed out; then if you want to find the money to have these massive expansions, then you need to look at every other spending bill and set your priorities straight. And let's say we're going to cut the money instead of doing it on the backs of our seniors. And that's why I say, you need a new acronym for this bill. It's not the CHAMP Act, Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. No, it's the CHUMP Act, Children's Health Unfunds Medicare Protection, and for our neediest seniors. And that's why we're here; absolutely, that's why we're here. We don't want you to do that. We don't want you to hurt the seniors, the 3.5 million, a part of the 8 million that get their Medicare through that Advantage option, because most of those seniors, Mr. Chairman, most of those seniors are our poorest seniors. They're in that category of income from $10,000 to $20,000. And those are the people who you are pushing off the Medicare program of choice, their program of choice. So anywhere we can find cuts, this amendment, the second-degree amendment, further amendments that we're going to offer, that's what we ought to do if we're going to have this massive increase in spending, which our side of the aisle feels like we should not do. Now, we could go home in August, Mr. Chairman, and say, on Thursday or Friday of this last week that we were in session, before the long break, the Democrats have destroyed Medicare for 3.5 million low-income seniors, and they've said they've done it in the interest of providing health care for children. But which children are we talking about? In their bill that's coming to the floor, with a closed rule, that we won't have an opportunity to amend, they want to cover children up to 400, maybe even more, the sky is the limit, 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, $82,000 a year for a family of four or maybe it's 500 percent or 600 percent. So what happens? Ninety percent of these children already have private health insurance. And so that's why we're here, and I support the second-degree amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, point of order.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, is it not true that we are talking about a spending bill----

Mr. GINGREY. The point of order, Madam Chairman, is, if there is spending and language in this bill that pertains to drugs, that pertains to health care, that pertains to the FDA and drug reimportation, then that makes this discussion of spending germane to the overall bill.

Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Is it not true that these points of orders and parliamentary inquiries that keep coming from the other side are just dilatory tactics on their part to take away our ability to talk to the American people and to this body on a very important issue?

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chair, point of order.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture by $50,050, a simple 1 percent; a 1 percent reduction in the expenses of the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not aimed necessarily at the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, but it aims to make a simple 1 percent reduction in order to shrink the Federal deficit. Why is that necessary? Well, we should be paying for increased spending by reducing other Federal spending, that's the 1 percent I'm calling for, rather than raising taxes or putting the burden on our Medicare seniors, as we do in this proposed SCHIP reauthorization and expansion, Mr. Chairman. And as we all know, the Democratic majority, the Energy and Commerce Committee bill, which will be combined with the bill out of the Ways and Means Committee we will be dealing with in the next day or two on this floor, calls for a $50 billion increase over the next 5 years. Now, that's on top of the base program which, in the aggregate, was a $25 billion program over the last 5 years. We're not going to increase that by 10 percent, by 20 percent, by 50 percent, or even by 100 percent. We're increasing it even more than that, going from $25 billion, Mr. Chairman, to $75 billion. So, that's why I'm standing before the body today and saying, look, this is a small cut; this is a little bit of money. But a little bit of money here and a little bit of money there, I've got lots of amendments where we ought to cut other programs here 1 percent to try to pay for some of these things that we are doing that violate your own rules, your own PAYGO rules. Mr. Chairman, I will say this; this new SCHIP program, everything's got to have an acronym, doesn't it? And it sells well if it has a catchy little acronym. And the Democratic majority is calling this one, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee came up with a nice, little cutesy acronym for this mass expansion called the CHAMP Act, Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. Mr. Chairman, I've got an acronym for this bill which fits it a lot better, and that acronym is the ``CHUMP Act.'' That's what it is, the CHUMP Act, the Children's Health Unfunding Medicare Protection Act. Because, Mr. Chairman, what this bill calls for is to totally wreck, totally destroy Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage is that part of the Medicare program where some 8 million out of 41, 42 million seniors have chosen that health care delivery model because they know they get an opportunity for preventative health care, they get an opportunity to have a nurse practitioner, a physician assistant, or maybe even the doctor him- or herself looking at their health care needs and not just providing, as in traditional Medicare, episodic care where there is no coordination. And a lot of times patients, particularly our seniors with multiple systems diseases, will come home from one doctor with a handful of prescriptions and the next week they're going to another doctor with a handful of prescriptions. The Medicare Advantage program was designed to help prevent that, to put an emphasis on coordination, on connecting the dots so that we wouldn't duplicate services, or in some instances, Mr. Chairman, even provide a level of care or prescription that could be detrimental to the patient, that could be counterproductive. So, this is why I feel that my amendment, this small amendment to cut by 1 percent the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, is a move in the right direction to say, look, don't do this massive expansion of the SCHIP program; reauthorize it. We all want to reauthorize it. In fact, I think maybe what the President called for in his budget was a little bit on the low side. Maybe increasing it $1 billion a year is not quite enough, if indeed, Mr. Chairman, there are 6 million youngsters who are needy and do not have health insurance in this country. So, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise not in opposition to this bill, in fact, I plan to support the bill, and I think most of my colleagues will on both sides of the aisle, but to just say that I regret that this is an opportunity missed for the new Democratic majority. If it's all about wanting to have one more of the 6 for '06 to take home during the August recess and say, well, now, we have passed three of the six, I would say that it should only be 2.25 at the most, because, as my colleagues have pointed out, this reform is only about a fourth of what was brought to us in that first couple of weeks of the 110th as part of the 6 for '06, six promises that were made to the American people that if you elect us, the Democrats, to a new majority, this is what we will deliver for you. And I will say again that this is a tremendous opportunity missed on behalf of the new majority. This bill just absolutely does not go far enough. Speaking to that point, I want to point out that in the bill that we passed in the House last year, in the 109th, when Republicans enjoyed majority status, I had an amendment to this bill, which I think that we need to have as part of the bill today. It was passed by voice vote. Yes, I regret, as the majority leader pointed out a minute ago, that the other body did not go to conference on this good sound, solid bill that had my amendment as a part of it. But let me point out quickly what that amendment says. Twenty years ago or more, in this Congress, a person could retire, a Member could retire and actually take what money they have in their campaign account, whether that's five figures or six figures or seven figures, could take that with them at retirement and convert that into personal gain. They could buy a Malibu beach home or a Rolls Royce car if they wanted to or send their children to the most expensive college in the Nation. Whatever they wanted to do, they could convert those campaign funds to personal use. Well, in the wisdom of the Congress, that was ended about 20 years ago. Just before it ended, a number of Members retired, took retirement, so they didn't have to forfeit that money. That was a good change. We have a situation now where a lot of Members form what are known as leadership PACs. Now, they don't necessarily have to be in leadership. I formed a PAC that I called DOCPAC and raised a little money for that so-called leadership PAC. But what I am talking about is the fact that the most powerful Members of the Congress, both in the House and the Senate, formed these leadership PACs. Let me give you just a couple of names, not Members, but members of the PAC. Searchlight Leadership Fund PAC, in the other body, in the 2006 cycle raised $2,346,000; spent $300,000 of that money to support other candidates in that party, which is an appropriate use of that money. But $2 million of it was spent for God knows what, Mr. Speaker. Another PAC, Hill PAC raised $2,900,000. Keeping America's Promises, $7,750,000 raised in the 2006 election cycle. VOL-PAC, $8 million raised in the 2006 election cycle. There is nothing, Mr. Speaker, in the rules that says that money cannot be converted to personal use when these Members, some of whom have recently, retired or are going to retire in the near future. So I would think that Members on both sides of the aisle would want to support something like this, to say that once a Member leaves this body that PAC money cannot be converted to personal use. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say once again, I have great respect for the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I am not opposed to the bill, and I know we have worked hard and I plan to support it. I am just saying the opportunity was missed. We should have gone much further. I hope sometime in the near future we will solve some of these problems like this leadership PAC issue.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I have been working on legislation to temporarily suspend the Visa Waiver Program until our ports of entry are secure with the technology outlined and required by the 2001 PATRIOT Act and the Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. For those who don't know, the Visa Waiver Program was established back in 1986 as a temporary program allowing tourists or short-term business visitors to enter the United States for 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. The program was later made permanent by Congress, and it currently includes 27 countries. The problem with this system is that terrorists are not limited by borders, nationality or even ethnicity. A terrorist with a French passport can be just as dangerous as one from Iran. In short, we need to make sure everyone who enters this country is appropriately screened. This conference report will expand the Visa Waiver Program simply at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Many of us read in the news this summer that the failed London and Glasgow bombings are linked to homegrown British terrorists with ties to al Qaeda in Iraq. I don't doubt that the United Kingdom is one of our closest allies, but this goes to show that even our greatest friends can be vulnerable to homegrown terrorists possessing legitimate citizenship documentation and authorized legal passports. Giving terrorists a free pass of any type into our country only welcomes more strikes on our homeland, and it strengthens these organizations, these terrorist organizations right here in the United States. We cannot afford additional visa waiver countries and provide more opportunities for terrorists to breach a loophole in our security. How much time does our Nation have before immigration, customs enforcement, our air marshals, the TSA, Transportation Security Administration, misses the next Richard Reid. In closing, this conference report will not secure our Homeland Security if it expands the opportunity for terrorists to travel to the United States. As a Member of the House Senate Conference Committee, I would not sign a report with language expanding this program. I urge my colleagues, vote down the rule and the underlying legislation. Let's send it back to the conference and secure our Homeland Security.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, it saddens me today that I have to vote against the farm bill, a $57 billion-a-year bill. I am compassionate and I care about the farmers in my district, but I must vote ``no'' and I must vote ``no'' for two reasons, one of which the gentleman from Tennessee just outlined. The bill calls for a massive tax increase on foreign companies that are doing business in this country. And in the State of Georgia, that is 176,000 jobs, 59,000 of them in the manufacturing sector. The gentleman from Tennessee has a better idea, and I plan to support his amendment. And, Mr. Speaker, the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirement absolutely hurts innovative businesses, like U.S. Biofuels in Rome, Georgia, that want to convert chicken fat and soy beans to biofuel; and yet these prevailing wages take away all incentive for that. We kill jobs in this country with this farm bill, and I reluctantly must vote ``no'' and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, while I see good reforms and programs in this farm bill, I also see onerous provisions such as a massive tax increase on foreign companies who are providing good jobs here in the United States, and Davis-Bacon restrictions on biofuel production plants that drive up costs far beyond any included incentive grants. In 2003, a constituent of Georgia's 11th District named Greg Hopkins took a big risk and decided to construct and operate a biofuel production plant called U.S. Biofuels in Rome, Georgia. He found a market demand, and that is the reason for his plant. But in order to make a profit, Greg has to minimize costs wherever possible. If the United States is serious about moving our country to alternative fuels, we don't need restrictions like Davis-Bacon prevailing wages. It is clear to me that the Democratic leadership of the 110th Congress is more interested in doing favors for deep-pocketed labor union supporters than protecting domestic biofuel producers, and I must oppose this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, as we begin debate on the FY2008 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill, I want to highlight the National Textile Center (NTC). The NTC is a 15-year-old grant program that supports research at nine member universities, including Georgia Tech, and is the main source of innovation for U.S. textile, fiber and apparel industries. In Georgia, the textile, fiber and apparel industry is the state's largest manufacturing employer with annual payroll of $500 million. It is imperative that this industry continue to benefit from the infusion of new ideas and talent that is the basis of the programs of the National Textile Center. National Textile Center projects in Georgia have lead to improving Georgia industry processes including new approaches to carpet recycling and new environmentally friendly approaches to dyes and bleaches that lower costs, increase competitiveness, and improve the local plant environmental impact. Outside of helping the textile industry respond to rapidly changing market demands, the NTC has also inspired and trained highly skilled talent for the U.S. textile industry and created educational opportunities in science, engineering, and technology for U.S. citizens and permanent residents from K-12 through the doctoral level. Mr. Chairman, the National Textile Center has clearly been an excellent steward of past funding provided by the Department of Commerce. With this in mind, I ask Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Frelinghuysen, and my colleagues in both bodies to preserve current funding and remember the importance of this program during the Conference process.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, BATFE, has been in operation without substantial changes since the days of prohibition, bootlegging and gang violence in the 1920s and 1930s. Last year the House Judiciary Committee considered legislation that would have introduced real reform to BATFE, updating the agency for the 21st century, although time ran out before Congress could get anything accomplished. One issue of reform I remain particularly concerned about is how BATFE actually tests firearms submitted by law-abiding firearm designers and manufacturers seeking approval to put their product on the market. Mr. Chairman, without written and uniform standards, gun manufacturers are left guessing about which agent will inspect the firearm this week, whether or not they will be able to ship a product out to potential customers, and whether or not BATFE agents might even prosecute someone because of a shipping mistake or a firearm malfunction. So I have introduced legislation called the Fairness in Firearms Testing Act to address this problem, and it requires BATFE, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to actually videotape firearms tests for the purpose of general oversight, and encourage the agency to adopt these testing standards. However, the amendment I'm offering today would cut right to the point by withholding funds to BATFE if they do not write and publish these testing standards. More specifically, this amendment creates a level playing field for all United States firearm manufacturers who depend on getting a firearm patented and on the market as soon as possible. Mr. Chairman, without written procedures, BATFE has literally a free rein to mistreat manufacturers, change their mind after the fact, and leave both manufacturers and customers at a legal and financial disadvantage. In fact, BATFE regulations are so inconsistent that some manufacturers have been threatened with prosecution after receiving written approval for their products from other BATFE personnel. Since 2002, 85 percent of American firearm manufacturers have been forced to close their doors. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. Since 2002, 85 percent of American firearm manufacturers have been forced to close their doors. There are only 373 licensed firearm inventors and manufacturers left in America. Moreover, with the increase in number of imported firearms purchased by civilians and law enforcement alike, our Nation is at a strategic defensive disadvantage. Mr. Chairman, I realize that the chairman has reserved a point of order, and he will explain that, I'm sure, momentarily, but it's my understanding that if I do agree to withdraw this amendment, that the chairman and the committee will work with me to help bring reforms to the BATFE, including these written standards, to help United States firearm manufacturers. I would be happy to yield to the chairman and to engage in a colloquy with him regarding that. Otherwise, in the absence of an agreement, then certainly I want to go forward with my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman.