Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. I was listening to my good friend and colleague from New York who just spoke about the debt that we built up under the Republican leadership; I think he mentioned the number $3 trillion. And I don't think that's admirable on our part. I want to say that I think most Members know that I'm a big fan of country music and one of my favorite singers is Randy Travis, and one of my favorite songs is ``Diggin Up Bones.'' The American people don't want us to be digging up bones and saying, well, you did this, or he hit me back first. I think what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to remember, the fact that we are now in the minority is not so much about the miscreant action of a couple of Members on our side who violated the public trust or the difficult slog in Iraq. That slog has been difficult. But more importantly, it's this debt that has been built up, this fiscal irresponsibility. This Republican Study Committee, the majority of the minority, and I'm proud of my Members on this side of the aisle that said enough is enough, the American people want us to stop spending their money. I support this amendment, a 1 percent cut across the board. It's not specifically so much about this particular appropriations bill, but it's about all of them. We have got to stop this nonsense spending once and for all. This is the time to draw the line in the sand, just like our colleague from Colorado, the esteemed Representative Mr. Hefley, did every year, 1 percent across-the-board cut. I'm embarrassed that I didn't vote for all those amendments, but I strongly support my colleague from Georgia in this amendment. And as my other colleague from Georgia said, to spend just $1 billion, you could spend $1 a second for the next 31 years to get to this expenditure of $1 billion. Support the amendment.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague Mr. Lewis for yielding. Former Member Jack Flynt served in this body for 24 years. It has been mentioned that he served on the Appropriations Committee. Some could say that he is neither a Democrat nor a Republican but an appropriator. But Jack Flynt was a boll weevil Democrat. If he were here today, he would be a staunch member of the Blue Dogs, I feel confident. When I was running in this district originally, that area was in my district and many people said to me, You need to know Jack Flynt. I am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that I never did get to know him. But in every instance the word about Jack Flynt was he was a gentleman. And he and his wife of 65 years, Patricia of Griffin, Georgia, they have three children: Susan Flynt Stirn of Arlington County; John J. Flynt III of Augusta, Georgia, my hometown; and Crisp B. Flynt of Griffin; four grandchildren and two great grandchildren. I am humbled to have an opportunity to just say a few words about a great Member of this body and to pay respect to him and offer our condolences to his entire family.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that occur sequentially in the bill, and I would ask unanimous consent that my amendments be considered en bloc.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation from this appropriation bill. I offer this amendment not because I think an interagency climate change science program necessarily is a bad idea, but because it is clearly authorizing on an appropriation bill, and I object to this procedure. House rule XXI (2) prohibits changing existing law in an appropriations bill. Contrary to this rule, the language included in the EPA section of H.R. 2643 changes existing law by establishing this new Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation which is tasked with ``reviewing science challenges related to adaptation and mitigation strategies necessitated by climate change.'' An interagency climate change science program that reviews these questions already exists under the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The Office of the Parliamentarian confirms that this provision does violate rule XXI. Also, Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall of the Science and Technology Committee sent a letter to the Rules Committee outlining these concerns requesting that the Rules Committee not waive points of order against this provision. Yet last night the Rules Committee reported out a rule that waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. Again, I reiterate, I am not opposed to authorizing a strong interagency climate change science program. In fact, on Wednesday, Science and Technology Committee will take up a bill, H.R. 906, that does just that. I plan to vote for it. H.R. 906 reorients the U.S. Global Change Research Program to produce more policy relevant information about, among other things, adaptation and mitigation. It also emphasizes the need to develop information to help communities make themselves more resilient to climate and other environmental changes. This is nearly identical to the task given to the Commission on Climate Change in this bill, H.R. 2643.

Mr. GINGREY. I will be glad to.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee Chair. Mr. Dicks and Mr. Gordon are honorable Members, and I am aware of the colloquy that they have had in regard to this matter. But to me the point is, and I want to go forward with this amendment, because it's not just this authorizing committee that I am concerned with, the Science Committee that I sit in on or the Armed Services Committee, it's all the authorizing committees. This rule, I think, is very, very important. For the Rules Committee to just waive this, I know that the other side, us, in the 109th, probably did the same thing on occasion. But at some point we need to draw the line on this, and how do we know that this bill, H.R. 906, that we are going to consider tomorrow, will ever get through the other body, and then we have this bill that's basically an appropriations bill and legislating on that. I think we ought to, as we go back into our district and talk to middle school students, and explain how this Congress works and what's the purpose of authorizing committees and appropriations committees, so they can understand that. This is just a situation where I feel very strongly about standing for the process, not necessarily what's been worked out between Mr. Dicks and Mr. Gordon. I respect both of them, I trust them. I know they will try to work this out. But the more we do this, the more confusing it gets. With all due respect to the chairman, I will not withdraw my amendment, but have a vote on it.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I thank him for yielding some time to me to conclude. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman said it just as well as it can possibly be said. Again, I want the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to know that it's not in opposition at all to the creation and the format of the committee. I think it's a grand design, a good idea. We all need to work toward climate change problems and solutions. I am just saying that this issue, and Mr. Westmoreland pointed out very well, that it's a process issue that we are opposed to, and I thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity. In conclusion, I want to urge my colleagues to allow the suitable authorizing committee, the Science and Technology Committee, to complete its consideration of the best way to improve our inter-agency climate science programs by supporting this amendment.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, how much additional time do I have?

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by both the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith. This amendment would simply reaffirm our country's long standing commitment to not using federal taxpayer money to fund or support abortions. More specifically, this amendment would preserve the decades-old, internationally agreed upon Mexico City Policy that defends the sanctity of life by preventing taxpayer dollars from funding overseas family planning organizations that promote or perform abortions. Mr. Chairman, while many Americans may disagree on the issue of abortion, a vast majority of them do not believe that abortions should be publicly funded. This Mexico City Policy significantly prevents the exploitation of developing nations where some non-governmental organizations aggressively advocate the use of abortion as birth control--birth control, Mr. Chairman. The tactics of these NGOs are simply and utterly unconscionable, and I know Americans don't want their tax dollars funding these activities. Now, opponents of the amendment have tried to assert that it would take away funding from international family planning. Quite to the contrary, this Amendment does not take one single cent from these activities, but rather maintains the current policy preventing Federal funding of foreign abortions. We must remain resolute in the preservation of this policy. Having practiced as a pro-life OB-GYN for nearly 30 years, I firmly believe that we have an obligation to protect life at each and every stage--and this obligation does not just apply to unborn Americans. Any human life--regardless of geography, regardless of circumstance-- has the right to exist. Foreign abortions are just as tragic as abortions here at home. We should not and we cannot allow the Mexico City Policy to be abandoned. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support Stupak/Smith.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I believe our Nation needs to secure its points of entry, and specifically I believe that we should prevent additional countries from joining the United States visa waiver program until we have technical and human resources to secure our points of entry. I do not believe our Nation can afford to allow more visitors in the United States without screening them prior to arrival. This amendment would prevent funds from being used to negotiate additional visa waiver countries. The State Department should not be using funds to negotiate new visa waivers until the machine-readable and tamper-resistant biometric identification standards that were mandated by the U.S. PATRIOT Act as a cornerstone of the entry-exit system are fully operational. We refer to that, Mr. Chairman, as the US-VISIT program. There are currently 27 visa waiver countries, and I believe it is too risky to negotiate additional countries without first having our security screening system in place. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to provide more opportunities for terrorists to breach a loophole in our security. How much time does our Nation have before ICE, the Immigration Customs Enforcement, the air marshals or the TSA, Transportation Security Administration, misses the next Richard Reid? For example, Habib Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent, a name we all know very well, actually used his French passport, without a U.S. visa, on February 23, 2001. He flew from London to Chicago and on to Oklahoma City, where he began the flight training at an aviation school. Fortunately, on August 16, 2001, INS arrested Moussaoui because he had remained in the United States well beyond the 90 days that were allowed under the visa waiver program entrants and he was in violation of the requirement that visa waiver program travelers enter for business or tourism. Had INS and law enforcement not been literally on top of their game, Mr. Speaker, Moussaoui could have been a part of the 9/11 attacks. That was his intent. We stopped him, but he was here on a visa waiver. A more recent example can be summarized in a June 18, just this month, 2007, ABC News reported about suicide bombers who were sent to the United States and Europe after being trained in Afghanistan. The story references this recent terrorist video where the Taliban military commander, Mansoor Dadullah, is found saying in this video, ``These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans, come here to Afghanistan from faraway places.'' This story further confirms, Mr. Speaker, what we already know: Terrorist forces are recruiting from the Western World, the same countries who are established members of our visa waiver program. I feel that we cannot continue a loophole that allows homegrown European terrorists access to the United States. Mr. Chairman, the visa waiver program was only designed to be a temporary program for a small and select group of nations, starting with the U.K., Japan and France. Now, 27 countries participate in the visa waiver program, believe me, enough to keep ICE and TSA exceedingly busy. Do we really need to fund efforts to add a 28th and 29th country to their list of responsibilities? I just don't want to see our Nation attacked because we couldn't carry through with our commitment to security first. I ask my colleagues, please, support this commonsense Gingrey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee for yielding, and I certainly appreciate his willingness to understand the necessity of the amendment. Indeed, I appreciate it and will agree to that, and hope the administration will follow through on the amendment. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I notice as I walk down the halls of the House office buildings these easels and these poster boards, I have been seeing those for last 3 or 4 years, talking about the national debt and what percentage of it is attributed to every man, woman and child in this country. I think that national debt is something like $8.77 trillion now. It is $29,000 for each man, woman and child. Well, the Democrats have come with these 11 spending bills, Mr. Chairman, to increase that spending an additional $23 billion. If my math is correct, then that raises the amount of debt for every man, woman and child in this country from $29,000 to $30,000. But wait just a second, Mr. Chairman. The way they are going to avert that is, you guessed it, raising taxes. They are going to put the largest tax increase in United States history on the backs of the American people. That is why the gentleman from Ohio has such a good amendment, to just simply say, let's go back to 2007 levels. Our hardworking men and women in this country, many of them, if not most of them, during this past year probably got no raise. Their cost of living went up. It didn't go down. So they are in a negative situation. Let's not make the matter worse by putting additional tax burden on the backs of the American people.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, once you sift through the mountain of misinformation presented on the floor tonight, it's clear that those who advocate cutting funding from WHINSEC do so, as I say, in the absence of fact. WHINSEC is not the School of the Americas. WHINSEC has a spotless human rights record and is exceeding in helping the United States develop critical relationships with our closer neighbors. Mr. Chairman, in fact, it is time to let the School of the Americas go, and to give WHINSEC a chance. And so I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I thank the ranking member for yielding to me. Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is a security fence around Fort Benning, but I would not describe the home of the Infantry as a fortress by any stretch of the imagination, as my colleague just referred. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Once more, my good friend, and he is my good friend, from Massachusetts has so confused the record that it's really tough to know where to begin. But let me try. He argues that we need to shut down WHINSEC because nearly 30 years ago, several graduates of a different program, the School of the Americas, were found to have committed atrocities in their home countries, a tenuous conclusion indeed. I wonder if he would argue that we should shut down Harvard because the Unabomber actually took some classes there. Mr. Chairman, of course he wouldn't. Because my friend knows that when a student does something awful years after graduating, you can't reasonably hold the school accountable. And to do so would let one man's action deny thousands more the opportunity to grow and to learn. Essentially it would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. So let's set the record straight, Mr. Chairman. Over 60,000 members of Latin American security forces have trained at WHINSEC and its predecessor since the inception of the school; 99.99 percent have served their countries with honor and distinction. This is the fact. In order to ensure that known human rights offenders are not attending WHINSEC, potential participants undergo background checks by the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and the Department of State, not vetted by WHINSEC. So I am proud to say, Mr. Chairman, that not one single credible accusation of human rights violations has been lodged against a graduate of WHINSEC. Not one. And I don't want the gentleman or my colleagues necessarily to take my word for this. I want to submit for the Record a letter from the United States Department of State, actually from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Patrick Duddy, in response to the Chairman of the Board of Visitors, the school board, WHINSEC school board, to Bishop Morlino dated January 7, 2007. United States Department of State, Washington, DC, January 7, 2007. Bishop Robert C. Morlino, Chairman, Board of Visitors, Western Hemisphere Institute of Security Cooperation. Dear Bishop Morlino: I would like to extend my congratulations on your unanimous selection by the Board of Visitors (BoV) members as incoming chairman for 2007. My representative at the December 2006 meeting has conveyed to me the BoV's request for additional information regarding vetting of attendees at U.S. Government-funded security training covered by the Leahy Amendment. As I mentioned in my previous letter, the Department of State is committed to implementing that law's restrictions on support for security units for which credible evidence of human rights violations exists. The Department has vetted tens of thousands of training participants. We have expanded the scope of our vetting to include individuals as well as units. The vetting process includes a local background check by our embassies, as well as checks by bureaus with regional responsibilities (e.g., the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs) and by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The Department of State maintains the Abuse Case Evaluation System (ACES), which is a central database that aggregates human rights abuse data into a single, searchable location and facilitates analysis of the data's validity. Personnel involved in the Leahy vetting process use this database as a resource for checking abuse allegations when conducting vetting requests. If all checks come back negative, the Embassy is notified that the individual is cleared for participation in training. The Department vetting process is extremely thorough, and one in which WHINSEC itself plays no role. As we have noted earlier, we find no evidence to substantiate any claims that the individuals in my previous letter were not properly vetted. We have no additional information Colonel Francisco Del Cid of El Salvador. As you will recall, I stated in my previous letter that we have no record of Del Cid participating in any programs subject to the provisions of the Leahy Amendment. Additional information regarding the other cases is as follows: Captain Filmann Urzagaste of Bolivia attended a WHINSEC program in 2002. It was alleged that he was involved the 1997 kidnapping of Waldo Albarracin, then a Bolivian human rights official. The Bolivian Supreme Court declared the charges to be without merit. Albarracin himself, in a recent interview with U.S. Embassy personnel in La Paz, made no mention of Urzagaste. When directly asked whether Urzagaste had been involved, Albarracin indicated that he had no recollection of Urzagaste. The Bolivian Supreme Court's website may be consulted for further information: http:// www.tribunalconstitucional.gov.bo/resolucion1040.html With regard to the three Colombian officers mentioned (Captain Dario Sierro Chapeta; Lieutenant Colonel Francisco Patino Fonseca, and Captain Luis Benavides Guancha), we have no record of any allegations regarding human rights violations. Our records indicate that Dario Sierro and Patino Fonseca attended WHINSEC in 2002, followed by Benavides Guancha in 2003. A Colombian police internal investigation into alleged corruption by the three came to light after they attended WHINSEC and were back in Colombia. The three were absolved as the charges were found to be unfounded and described as unsubstantiated allegations. The Colombian Attorney General's office has posted a short article on the case at: http://www.fiscalia.gov.co/pag/divulgainoticias2005/ anticorrup/corrupNasNov17.htm. Thank you for your inquiry. Sincerely, Patrick Duddy, Deputy Assistant Secretary. Mr. Chairman, every year the gentleman from Massachusetts states that participation in WHINSEC is declining as Latin American nations grow weary of our influence. However, the numbers tell a different story. In 2005, 686 students from Latin America attended WHINSEC. In 2006 that number doubled, up to 1,217. And we saw Brazil for the first time, a fact that can't be overlooked as they have begun to participate, and they are the neighbors of who else but Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Another important fact the gentleman eschews is that the School of the Americas closed in 1999. That school closed. WHINSEC opened a year and a half later, in 2001, totally revamped its curriculum. The mission for WHINSEC, Mr. Chairman, could not be clearer. It's threefold: to provide professional education and training to military personnel, law enforcement officials and civilians. Number two, foster cooperation among participating nations. Thirdly, to promote democratic values and, let me emphasize, respect for human rights. Mr. Chairman, WHINSEC has consistently accomplished all of these goals, strengthening security cooperation between the United States and Latin America. In fact, the House Armed Services Committee recognized this as much as 2 weeks ago when we unanimously voted to recommend that the Department of Defense continue utilizing WHINSEC to strengthen security cooperation in the western hemisphere. The fiscal year 08 National Defense Authorization Act, which included this provision, passed this body overwhelmingly by a vote of 397-27. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend and colleague from the great State of Georgia. The gentleman represents Fort Benning in Muscogee County, and it gives me great pleasure at this time to yield to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it gives me great pleasure to yield up to 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, what is truly disingenuous is that nobody here tonight speaking against WHINSEC, to my knowledge, has ever taken the time to visit the school. The gentleman, the author of the amendment, my good friend, talked about transparency. It's not because folks have not been invited. WHINSEC is so proud of its operation and record on human rights that it maintains an open-door policy. And Mr. Chairman, that would be true even for the School of the Americas Watch Group. They are welcome at any time to come in and look and talk to Colonel Perez, the director of the school, and look at the curriculum. Any Member of this body can show up unannounced to see for themselves what's being taught at WHINSEC. Those of us who've taken the time to visit understand the critical importance of engaging the leaders and the law enforcement personnel of our closest neighbors while spreading democracy and respect for human rights. We understand that unlike its predecessor, the School of the Americas, WHINSEC has a substantial human rights component that goes well beyond the training required by law. In fact, at a recent HASC hearing, Admiral Stavridis, the Commander of Southern Command, referred to WHINSEC as the military's crown jewel for human rights training. Mr. Chairman, as we've made clear, those who advocate cutting funding for WHINSEC do so in the absence of fact. WHINSEC has a spotless human rights record and a tremendous record of success in the Western Hemisphere. I urge all my colleagues, please vote ``no'' on the McGovern amendment.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, I will quote USAID on this, Mr. Ryan. Twenty countries that currently do not receive USAID family planning would not receive donations under this amendment because the countries in question that you're talking about, have comparatively low need for family planning. And furthermore, they lack USAID presence necessary to monitor compliance with other statutory provisions.

Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I want to say that I, Doctor, Representative Phil Gingrey as a pro-life OB-GYN, in the interest of full disclosure, I want to say that I'm very supportive of family planning, but not family planning that includes definition of abortion as part of family planning. In the Lowey amendment, which I'm opposed to, I'm not questioning her integrity or intent in what she says in explanation, but I think it's a very confusing amendment. And when we just heard the two Democratic Members engaging in a colloquy with the chairwoman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), as they said that they were very much in favor of the Mexico City policy and wanted to make sure that no money would be spent, and I think the chairlady tried to explain that. But then just a second ago, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), stood up to ask our ranking member if there was anything in the Lowey amendment that spoke to the issue of funding. But I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, funding versus commodity. If you tell me that you're going to give me $75, that's funding, I guess. If you're going to say, no, I'm not going to give you $75, I'm going to give you a tank of gas, it's the same value. And I think as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) was explaining earlier with his poster, that you ultimately take money away from the countries that need it. And we don't want to do that. If you really want to make sure that we don't export abortion to another country, then we're going to have an amendment coming up momentarily, the Stupak-Chris Smith amendment, that strikes the language and restores the Mexico City policy.

Mr. GINGREY. I'll be glad to yield to my friend from Ohio.