Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I really thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I am sitting here chuckling a little bit here at that comment, too much month left over at the end of the money. If that doesn't cut to the chase, I don't know what does. And certainly I want to compliment my colleagues from the 108th Congress.

Mr. GINGREY. And I thank the gentlewoman; and absolutely right on target. I also share her love of country music as well. But when we did that press conference today, Mr. Speaker, with our Communications Chair of the Republican Study Committee, our chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and John Campbell, the gentleman from California, who chairs our Subcommittee on the Budget and Spending Task Force and many other of the members of the Republican Study Committee and talked about this four point Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Everything has got an acronym. You could call that TABOR, I guess, TABOR. But the gentleman from Texas who just preceded me outlined those 4 points. I don't need to go back into that. But clearly, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is just as important, as one of the Hosses from the State of Georgia, our dear esteemed colleague, Charlie Norwood introduced a bill a number of years ago, the Patient Bill of Rights. I love that. The Patient Bill of Rights. I wasn't a Member at the time. It inspired me to become a Member, because he was concerned about the physical well-being when the excesses of the managed care industry, if you will, were really causing people a hard row to hoe to get to their doctor of choice. And Charlie Norwood, Dr. Charlie, had that Patient Bill of Rights because he was concerned about the physical well-being of America. And what we are talking about now is the fiscal well-being in this Taxpayer Bill of Rights, equally as important. And again, I am proud to be supportive of my colleagues in the Republican Study Committee. I hope that we can have the Blue Dog Democrats embrace this TABOR, Taxpayer Bill of Rights. I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker. This is the season of Lent. It is the season when Christians reflect on their spiritual life, and they think about repentance and doing things better and being better toward their fellow man and making sacrifices. And I will tell you, I have thought about that during this Lenten season; we are midway at this point, of my political life and what changes I, as a Member, can make, representing those 650,000 constituents in the 11th District, Northwest Georgia, what can I do better for them? Have I lost my way a little bit? I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. And these are my two good friends that are on the floor with me. They have not lost their way. And they have been an inspiration to me from day one, back in 2003, when we were sworn in, in regard to their total commitment to fiscal responsibility and taking that leadership role. I have been maybe, from time to time a little bit squishy. Some of those people that come in, you know, it is easy, everybody needs a little bit more. Just what is going to make you happy? Well, just a little bit more spending from the Federal Government. But I am recommitting myself during this Lenten season, both spiritually and politically, because what has really happened, Mr. Speaker, and I think my acting Legislative Director said this to me as we were chatting earlier this evening. He said, you know, Congressman, what has happened here is the Federal Government has become this giant riding lawnmower, this giant riding lawnmower, when the Founding Fathers really intended it to be a weedeater, and that is exactly what has happened. We need to go back and with this Taxpayer Bill of Rights, go back to the days when the Federal Government was a weedeater, and we can do it. And I commend my colleagues, and I appreciate the opportunity to share those thoughts with my colleagues tonight. And I yield back.

Mr. GINGREY. Of course I will yield.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is going to be like two discussions, one from the professor and the other one from maybe his first year master's program student. Although I have a M.D., Dr. Bartlett, of course, is a Ph.D. physiologist, and as he explains this, it is compelling, the evidence that he gives. Sometimes I get a little lost in the science myself, but I think the main thing to know about the bill that he has introduced, and introduced in the last Congress and introduced again in the 110th this year, H.R. 322 is an alternative way to obtain almost totally potential, totipotential embryonic, almost embryonic stem cells, without getting into this moral-ethical dilemma of the question of are you for life at its earliest and its most advanced stages, are you pro- life or pro-choice. This is a debate that will go on probably for long after we are all gone and other people have taken our places on both sides of the aisle. But what I like about the Bartlett bill, H.R. 322, is it says, Mr. President, we don't have to divide the country over this issue. It has been divisive. The President made a very difficult decision back in I think August of 2001 when there was this call for Federal funding for stem cell research. Before that, there had been none, or none on embryonic stem cell, let me say. There had been some research on adults in bone marrow and cord blood and things like that, and I am sure Dr. Bartlett has talked about that. But the President has said, look, we will allow embryonic stem cell funding by the John Q. Public taxpayer on these existing stem cell lines that had been indeed obtained from a living human embryo, little life in their earliest forms, that were obtained from these fertility clinics that were considered extra or throwaway or whatever. So the President, I forget the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of research that the Federal Government has funded through the National Institutes of Health and other agencies, but it is substantial, but he did not want to fund any more research on new destruction of life. So that is where we have been for these last few years, until Ms. DeGette and Mr. Castle in the House passed their bill that would allow the use of the little embryos from the fertility clinics. So I want to commend Dr. Bartlett, because what he says is that maybe it is true, maybe it is true that the embryonic stem cell in its earliest form has more potential than the adult stem cells. The adult stem cells are multipotent, but not pluripotent, and certainly not totipotent. So what Dr. Bartlett has done in his bill is say, look, there are other ways. Madam Speaker, there is a doctor at Wake Forest University and just recently he did some research and reported in a very respected medical journal of being able to obtain cells from amniotic fluid as early as 10 to 12 weeks of a pregnancy. Now, that is not a true embryonic cell, but it is getting pretty darn close to it. It is getting darn close to it. I would be very interested in hearing what Dr. Bartlett says about if you compare the potential of those cells in amniotic fluid that you can obtain when a woman, let's say for genetic diagnosis she is 10 to 12 weeks pregnant, she is over the age of 35, she has concerned about the increased risk of Down Syndrome, and she wants some assurance that that baby, her baby, doesn't have Down Syndrome. So that is why the amniotic fluid is obtained, to get some of those cells to know the exact genetic makeup of that child. But there are lots of extra cells that could be then used with the patient's consent without harming anything, certainly without destruction of any living embryo. So this is why I as kind of a practical-minded former OB-GYN physician, who has not researched, who never published a paper, who didn't work at one of the great medical centers in this country, but I did go to a wonderful medical school, the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta, and I did my residency there in obstetrics and gynecology, and then went out and practiced for 26 years and delivered a lot of babies, and I feel I know of what I speak. But what I want to do, and the purpose of me being here tonight and sharing this time with Dr. Bartlett, is to say we don't have to fight about this. We got lots of things we can fight about. We are fighting about the conduct of the war right now. We have people in this body that say it was the wrong thing, and then other people say, no, no, it wasn't the wrong thing, but the thing is wrong, and they are arguing about how we have conducted that. We will have and are having a fair debate and difference of opinion. But this is one that, because of what is in the Bartlett bill, H.R. 322, we don't really have to fight about it. We don't have to get ugly about it. And most importantly, we don't have to destroy any human life in getting these nearly totally potential, almost embryonic stem cells. Of course, Dr. Bartlett will want to discuss further, I think, that as part of his bill there are techniques that you actually can obtain an embryonic stem cell without destroying the embryo, by doing a biopsy technique. So that is why I strongly support his bill. We all, everybody in this House and in the other Chamber, the other body, our heart goes out to the Michael J. Foxes of the world, the Christopher Reeves of the world and the folks that are not famous that may be members of our own family. I have heard my colleagues come down and speak in the well compellingly about members of their own family. Our esteemed colleague from Rhode Island, a wonderful Member of this body, who, as a paraplegic, when he talks, people listen, obviously, on both sides of the aisle. So we want help. We want help ASAP. But I don't think we have to divide our country, we don't have to divide ourselves, we don't have to destroy any human life. As I kind of sum up and close and turn it back over to the real expert, I just want to say, Madam Speaker, that it is suggested there are extra and there are so many, 400,000 or whatever, just sitting around waiting to be utilized for their embryonic cells and they are going to be thrown away. It is really not true, and we all know that. We all know that many of the Snowflake Babies have been up here in Washington, in some instances twins that were adopted as embryos and implanted into a mom who couldn't have a baby before that, and in some instances had more than one and had two. I have held them in my arms. We call them the Snowflake Babies, but they are beautiful little toddlers for a lot of infertile couples. So there are no extra babies. There are no throwaways. With that, I yield back to my colleague. I appreciate him giving me a little time to join him and say hoorah for the work he is doing on H.R. 322.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for recognizing me, and I have a longer speech that I want to submit for the Record. I think my staff must have been looking over the ranking member's shoulder when they wrote it. He has already said those nice things about our good friend, Charlie Norwood. I was touched, though, in the letter that he received and read, the phrases ``hogwash'' and an ``old country dentist.'' I was sitting here thinking, I can see Charlie saying those things on this floor. That is the way he was and that is the way we remember him. He wasn't an old country dentist, let me assure you. He was a prosperous dentist in Augusta, Georgia, a population of 130,000, the home of the Masters; but that was Charlie. Let me join Joe Barton, the ranking member, in thanking Chairman Dingell. I mentioned this bill to the chairman last week, and he looked at me and said, Doc, and he had a little mist of tear in his eye, he said, Don't worry about this; we are going to do this. And I knew then that the chairman and Representative Inslee and others were fully supportive of what Charlie was trying to do. If he was thinking just of himself, Mr. Speaker, this bill probably would say the Living Lung Organ Donation Act, which also would be possible; but that wasn't Charlie. He was thinking about those 70,000 other people who are waiting for a kidney. Charlie himself had to wait a long time to get that lung. Too long, we think. I don't know if it would have saved his life if he would have had an opportunity for a paired living lung donor, but he was thinking of others who were suffering, and as others have said, to bring a commonsense solution to problem solving in a bipartisan way. They described Charlie as a dog that has got ahold of a bone and won't let it go. Well, we can say to Charlie today, as part of our legacy to him, that he has succeeded. Mr. Speaker, let's support this bill as a legacy and tribute to the great Member, Charlie Norwood Mr. Speaker, this legislation honors a dear friend and former colleague in this body, the late Congressman Charlie Norwood. Charlie worked tirelessly as an advocate for patients across our Nation, and this bill is a fitting tribute to the tremendous impact he's made on healthcare in America. Mr. Speaker, in this country, there are more than 74,000 men, women and children on the waiting list for a kidney transplant. Unfortunately, if the current trend of kidney transplants continues, only about half of these candidates will ever receive a life-saving transplant. Tragically, in 2004, nearly 4,000 listed patients died while awaiting a kidney. One way for individuals to avoid the kidney transplant waiting list all together is to find a living donor, like a friend or family member who is willing to selflessly donate a kidney to save a loved one. The limitation on this compassion is that only compatible matches can donate kidneys; if your friends and family are not a match, they can't be your donor. But those of us who knew Charlie know that he was an excellent problem solver, always turning challenges into opportunities. With the limited donor options individuals face within their community of family and friends, patient advocates and healthcare providers have pushed for living organ donors. Charlie was convinced of the unlimited potential that could be realized when the pool of living donors would be expanded beyond one's immediate family and friends. In fact, there have been success stories of hospitals doing just this--finding pairs of living kidney donors who aren't matches for their own loved ones, but are matches for someone else's loved one. Unfortunately, due to conflicting interpretations of the National Organ Transplant Act, hospitals across the country are hesitant to make this type of procedure a rule--and this where the Charlie Norwood Living Kidney Organ Donation Act will create miracles. H.R. 710 would clarify in statute that this type of paired living kidney donation would be allowed under Federal law. This will alleviate the concerns of hospitals and healthcare providers that want to give all kidney patients the hope that transplants represent but ambiguity in law currently prevents. Mr. Speaker this is a win-win situation. More patients would benefit from a kidney transplant, thereby reducing the number of individuals on the waiting list. In turn, more Americans--both on the waiting list and off--will have that miraculous second chance at life. Mr. Speaker, passing this legislation will be a lasting tribute to Charlie Norwood's selfless efforts to help those in need. While we all wish our friend's lung transplant had saved his life, we can honor him by giving Americans across our Nation greater access to the potential miracle of an organ donation.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recall the memory of three selfless and courageous Georgians, who tragically were killed in an accident last month while performing missionary work in rural Honduras. Perry Goad and Ric Mason of Cartersville and Martha Fuller of Newnan were doing God's work on a church mission in the tiny village of Mal Pais. Together with a group of volunteers from several Georgia churches, they were working to set up running water, connect electricity, pave roads and improve life for the families living in Agalta Valley. It was during this effort that the group's truck rolled over on an undeveloped stretch of road, killing Perry, Ric and Martha. Madam Speaker, these are three outstanding citizens who eagerly dedicated their time, their effort, their love and spirit to helping those in need. They were not content to simply sit in church and learn about the problems facing our world. They made an effort to go out and to fix these problems. And indeed, our community has truly lost three guiding lights. Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in remembering the righteous lives of Perry Goad, Ric Mason and Martha Fuller and in offering prayers of healing to the other volunteers who were injured in the accident.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise for the second time during this 36-hour marathon to strongly oppose this, I almost want to say, meaningless resolution, Mr. Speaker. But make no mistake about it, this is not a meaningless resolution. The consequences of failure in Iraq are drastic, and let me just read to you what some of those are. Number one, collapse of a democratic Iraqi government, likely, very likely leading to mass killings and genocide in the nation. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would use this defeat to boost recruitment. They would use Iraq as a staging ground for deadly attacks paid for with Iraqi oil revenue. Iran and Syria would exert tremendous influence over the region. You think they are bad actors now, you just wait until this scenario plays out. And, indeed, and they have said that Israel would be pushed into the sea. Mr. Speaker, the real Democratic plan is coming later. And if you don't believe me, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle just read a recent article this week in Roll Call. I am not going to stand up here and read it to the Members. You can read it. But the Progressive Caucus of the House Democratic Conference, the Out of Iraq Caucus of the House Democratic Conference, led by Ms. Woolsey and Ms. Waters, basically say that this is just the first step. They say that in this op ed article. This resolution is not meaningless. It is the first step, my colleagues, toward cutting off funding for the troops and pulling the rug out from under them. What does this say then to our brave fighting men and women who are trying to defend this country? We have heard over and over again from the other side that, ``Look, we can't afford this war anymore. It is costing too much in lives and money. We are making too big a commitment there, and we need to bring our troops home because some other conflict may break out in this world.'' Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues. What is more important than the current war? What indeed are we going to save our troops for? Working the rope lines at 4th of July parades, helping senior citizens cross the street? We have got to stop this and stop it now. And listen to what the terrorists themselves say about the message that that would send. And this is a quote, Mr. Speaker, from bin Laden himself: ``Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.'' His top deputy, bin Laden's deputy Zawahiri, says, ``The Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.'' Make no mistake about this. What we are doing with this resolution is not a salute to GI Joe, it is a capitulation to Jihadist Joe.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our troops who are faithfully serving our Nation in harm's way. Therefore, I must oppose this resolution brought to the floor by the Democrats because it offers no plan, no strategy, and no hope for victory. In fact, it does nothing but risk demoralizing our troops. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that Republicans and Democrats alike recognize mistakes have been made in Iraq and neither side of the aisle is happy with where we are today. But rather than offering solutions to move us forward or engage in a productive debate on alternative strategies, the Democrats have decided to propose what certainly seems to be a politically motivated resolution. I ask, Mr. Speaker, what are we really accomplishing with this resolution? The answer is nothing. With this shameless stunt, the Democrats are locking down this body for 36 hours maybe in hopes of scoring political points by criticizing the President. But by using our troops as pawns in an attempt to gain political leverage, this resolution serves only to weaken troop morale while giving hope and comfort to the enemy. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have done nothing to end the war or help our troops achieve victory. Mr. Speaker, seeing as the Democrats have hijacked the Floor all week to debate this resolution, surely they must have an alternative to the President's plan. I will bet the American people are as eager as I am to hear about this new plan for success, their plan. Certainly my constituents in the Eleventh District of Georgia are waiting. So what is their magic alternative? Mr. Speaker, here it is. It is the same on both sides. They don't have one. We have heard from members of the Democratic team threaten to cut funding, to cap troop levels or to compel a forced withdrawal. But where are those ideas in this resolution? I have read through its two brief paragraphs and I can assure you they aren't to be found. Sadly, the Democrats lack the political will to fully engage in a meaningful debate on Iraq policy. They have refused to allow a vote on funding for the war which would give Members an opportunity to show support for our troops with actions and not empty words. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership is afraid to ask their Members to put their money where their mouths are and either vote yes or no to fund our troops and the mission. Isn't this why they have denied Republicans an opportunity to offer an alternative bill, or even a motion to recommit? They were for that last Thursday, before being against it tonight. Sound familiar? Apparently, Mr. Speaker, calls for funding cuts and troop withdrawals are good enough for newspaper headlines, but they are not good enough for votes on this House floor. Let me remind my colleagues that sound bites for the nightly news will do nothing to win this war against terror. Mr. Speaker, America has a long tradition of standing on the right side of this fight for freedom, even when it is a difficult stand to make, and the right course of action today is to stand by the Iraqi people until their government, their police and military can ensure the security of their own nation. As in any war, there have been setbacks in Iraq. But as in past wars, we will move forward with victory as our goal. This Democratic resolution is a thinly veiled attempt to sound the retreat. That amounts to an unacceptable act of playing politics with our national security. Mr. Speaker, as you have heard over the past 2 days, this is a serious debate, with very serious ramifications. It is not simply a simple resolution as the Democrats would like to characterize it. But on one hand, we have a shot at victory. We have an opportunity to push back the cause of radical terrorism. On the other hand, we have a two paragraph, nonbinding resolution that is essentially a vote of no confidence in the commander in chief. This is not the time for our majority party to cave in to their anti- war supporters of the liberal left and play politics with the security of the United States. This is a time for bold leadership and bold plans. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, neither is on display here today. I hope for the sake of the American people, our troops and freedom- loving nations around this world, that this resolution's flimsy words are not taken as a substitute for America's long tradition and commitment to achieving victory. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to point out to my colleagues this poster on my left. These brave soldiers, Paul Saylor from Breman, Georgia; Justin Johnson from Rome, Georgia; Lieutenant Tyler Brown, a Georgia Tech graduate, the president of the student body; and Hayes Clayton, III, from Marietta, Georgia, all died for their country. Mr. Speaker, we cannot turn our backs on them. We cannot say to their moms and dads, their brothers and sisters, their wives and their children, that we supported sending them into harm's way and they gave their lives for their country, and now we are saying it was for naught, it was for nothing, it was not worth it. We can't let that happen. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me in voting down this meaningless resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our troops, who are faithfully serving our Nation in harm's way. Therefore, I must oppose this resolution brought to the floor by the Democrats because it offers no plan, no strategy, and no hope for victory. In fact, it does nothing but risk demoralizing our troops. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that Republicans and Democrats alike recognize mistakes have been made in Iraq, and neither side of the aisle is happy with where we are today. But rather than offering solutions to move us forward, or engaging in a productive debate on alternative strategies, the Democrats have decided to propose what certainly seems to be a politically motivated non-binding resolution. I ask, Mr. Speaker, what are we really accomplishing with this resolution? The answer is nothing. The Democrats are locking down this body for 36 hours--maybe in hopes of scoring political points by criticizing the President. But by using, our troops as pawns in an attempt to gain political leverage, this resolution serves only to weaken troop morale, while giving hope and comfort to the enemy. And in doing so, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have done nothing to end the war or to help our troops achieve victory. Mr. Speaker, since the Democrats have hijacked the floor all week to debate this resolution, surely they must have an alternative to the President's plan. I'll bet the American people are as eager as I am to hear about this new plan for success. Certainly my constituents in the 11th District of Georgia are. So what is their magic alternative? As far as I can tell, Mr. Speaker, they don't have one. We've heard members of the Democrat team threaten to cut funding, cap troop levels, or compel a forced withdrawal. But where are those ideas in this resolution? I've read through its two brief paragraphs, and I can assure you--they aren't to be found. Sadly, the Democrats lack the political will to fully engage in a meaningful debate on Iraq policy. They've refused to allow a vote on funding for the war, which would give Members an opportunity to show support for our troops with actions, not empty words. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leadership is afraid to ask their members to put their money where their mouths are and vote ``yes'' or ``no'' to fund our troops and their mission. Isn't this why they've denied Republicans an opportunity to offer an alternate bill, or even a motion to recommit with instructions? They were for that last Thursday before now being against it. Sound familiar? Apparently, Mr. Speaker, calls for funding cuts and troop withdrawal are good enough for newspaper headlines, but not for votes on the House floor. Let me remind my colleagues that sound bytes for the nightly news will do nothing to win this war on terror.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, Charlie Norwood was a very successful dentist in my hometown of Augusta, Georgia. I didn't know Charlie at that time because I had long since moved away. But as a practicing physician in Marietta, Georgia, as an OB/GYN, several years ago I went to the annual meeting of the Georgia OB/GYN Society to hear Dr. Charlie Norwood talk about the Patients' Bill of Rights. Physicians across Georgia and across this country were concerned with managed care and HMOs and liability and that sort of thing. And, Mr. Speaker, when I heard Dr. Norwood speak to my colleagues, physicians about this issue, and them, in turn, including myself, give him a standing ovation, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I never did tell Charlie this, but that was an inspiration to me to want to some day have the opportunity, and thank God that I did, to follow in that walk that he walked. What a great Member of this body and what a fierce competitor and a fair competitor, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the distinguished John Lewis, knows well, Charlie would fight for something he believed in but in a very respectful way. And he thought about others before himself. An example, Mr. Speaker, is that just in this last election cycle, when Charlie was suffering so much, as Representative Deal has just mentioned, he didn't think about himself. He won his reelection with 67 percent of the vote. And it wasn't that he couldn't campaign because of his illness. He was working all that time for another colleague in a very competitive district. He was essentially running that other campaign. That is the kind of guy Charlie Norwood was, and the kind of fellow that we will all remember here on both sides of the aisle in this great House of Representatives. He was a friend, he was a colleague. He was a fighter. He was a fighter for patients' rights. He was a fighter for students, as his work on the Education and Workforce Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, he is somebody that we can all emulate. And I just want to say to his wife Gloria, to his two sons, Carlton and Charles, Jr., and to the four grandchildren and to the Norwood family, we are praying for you. We want to uplift you. We will be with you tomorrow, but we know, as you do, that Charlie is in heaven right now, and God has accepted him in open arms and saying, well done, my good and faithful servant.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding. Mr. Speaker, in response to our articulate friend from the State of New York, in regard to his comment, we have given war a chance. I would just say to him, you have. We have given war a chance, and we have not given victory a chance. This is not the time to pull the rug out from under those who have given their lives for their country.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. We are about to begin 3 days of debate over the Democrats' nonbinding resolution, 3 days of debate over a resolution that is nothing more than a political statement against our President. Considering that last month Democrats rammed six bills through this House in a mere 100 hours, I would say we have ample time this week to also debate a Republican alternative to this resolution. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, last week one of the Democratic Members in this body repeatedly referred to us as the ``Republic Party.'' I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that that Member was necessarily trying to pay us a compliment. But indeed he did, because this is a Republic, and we speak on behalf of 650,000 constituents. But the Democrats have taken that away from us, Mr. Speaker. The Democratic leadership has shown us time and time again their pledge of an open and inclusive Congress amounts to nothing more than tired campaign rhetoric. So over and over the next 3 days, you will hear many Republican opinions and ideas, but you will see no Republican legislation. Perhaps the Democratic leadership is afraid that a Republican alternative, like the bill introduced by a true American war hero, Sam Johnson of Texas, would force the Members to finally put their money where their mouths are and vote ``yes'' or ``no'' to cut funding for the troops. But instead, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats prefer to debate nonbinding resolutions that criticize the President's plan without offering any alternative or strategy for victory. Mr. Speaker, we should be using the next 3 days to debate substantive legislation, not political attacks. This nonbinding resolution may have been crafted with the 2008 election in mind, but I implore my colleagues to look far beyond 2008 to the future of our Nation and this global war on terror. Don't play politics with the security of the United States of America. Don't play politics with possibly our last best chance to secure freedom for the Iraqi people on the greater stability in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have sometimes accused Republicans in this Congress of being ``yes men'' for the President. Well, I believe the Democrats are being ``no men'' for the President, blindly saying no to any plan he proposes, without considering the merits or what is best for the security of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely unbelievable that the Democrats are proposing 3 days of debate on an issue as critically important as Iraq without any Republican input or alternative. The manner in which this debate will be carried out is an affront to the American people and to our troops. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to this shameful rule.

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) to H.R. 547. I also rise to support H.R. 547, Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. It is a good bill. And I am on the Science Committee, and it did pass by unanimous consent. Mr. Chairman, I was also at the hearing this morning that lasted 3 hours on the Science Committee with my chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee. And we were honored to have the Speaker of the House of Representatives testify before that committee. Well, this is a historic opportunity. She was received with a great deal of respect and certainly respect by me. She testified; I don't disagree with any of her testimony. She talked about global warming and the concern that she has for our young children and the environmental debt that has to be paid at some point in the future. Unfortunately, her schedule did not permit time to take questions, maybe a couple, from the Members of the Science Committee. Maybe one question that should have been asked if we had that opportunity is how about the economic debt that we would have to pay if we do something draconian when all these other countries, especially countries like China and India, are totally ignoring it, and they are going to continue to pollute the environment. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Virginia brings is about the concern with continuing to produce carbon dioxide, and yes, polluting the environment, and jet fuel is a big problem, a big contributor to that. I commend the chairman for accepting the amendment, and I think we should do that unanimously. Maybe the Speaker would like to come down on the floor and take as much time as she would like and talk about her support for this. But the Speaker has made a mistake in requesting a jet plane far beyond what the previous Speaker had. I don't disagree that she should have the same security as the previous Speaker; we are not arguing that point. Mistakes can be made like Tunagate; the Speaker may not have known about that. And she was smart enough to call a press conference and say we are going to correct that, she should be smart enough to hold a press conference and correct this.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of football all-star and community hero Ray Beck, who passed away recently in Cedartown, Georgia. Mr. Beck is a football legend both in my home State of Georgia and across the Nation. After 4 years as a star on the Cedartown High School football team, Ray attended Georgia Tech, my alma mater, to play guard for the legendary coach Bobby Dodd. In 1951, he was named an All-American by the American Football Coaches Association and the Football Writers Association. That same year, he helped lead Georgia Tech to an 11-1 record and an Orange Bowl victory over Baylor University. After college, Beck was drafted by the New York Giants. He was part of the 1956 World Championship Team. And Madam Speaker, that team included the likes of Y.A. Tittle, Kyle Rote and Sam Huff. They led the Giants to a 56-7 victory over the Chicago Bears, a far more lopsided score than the Indianapolis Colts achieved this past weekend. On the football field, Ray was known as a team player, someone who gave his all to the game. Because of his tremendous work ethic he was inducted into the Georgia Sports Hall of Fame and the College Football Hall of Fame. But Ray was more than just a football player. He was an active and enthusiastic supporter of the Cedartown community. The same attitude that made him a star on the field made him a hero in his community. There is hardly an organization in Cedartown that hasn't been touched by Beck's generosity. Madam Speaker, he was chairman of the Cedartown Development Authority. He was president of the Cedartown Chamber of Commerce, a member of the Polk Medical Center Advisory Board, a board member of the Georgia Motor Trucking Association. But perhaps he will be best remembered for a charity golf tournament he arranged with his long time friend, Doc Ayers. This annual event raised thousands of dollars for Polk County, for charities such as children's literacy and all the way to local food banks. It is a little wonder Beck was named Citizen of Excellence by the Cedartown Civic Arts Commission for his philanthropy to this great community. One of Ray's former teammates commented that he was, and I quote, ``one of the people you could always count on.'' Ray took that attitude from the football field to the community of Cedartown, and his contributions to both will live on as his legacy. I send my deepest, deepest condolences to his wife, Claire, and to his whole family. I know all of Polk County mourns your loss. Madam Speaker, as a younger generation looks to sport stars as heroes and role models, I hope they come across men like Ray Beck. He was committed to his team and committed to his community. He gave his all on the field and then gave back to the town where he was raised. He was generous with his time, his wisdom and his energy, and Cedartown, Georgia, is a far, far better place because of him. Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in honoring the legacy of Ray Beck.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, as Congress debates measures to clean up meth labs, I believe it is important to offer a physician's perspective to help some people understand why this drug is so dangerous. Also called crank, blue acid, speed, and ice, meth is a popular drug because it is cheap, easy to manufacture, and acts as a powerful stimulant. An investment of just a few hundred dollars in over-the-counter medications and chemicals can produce thousands of dollars worth of methamphetamine, which can be cooked in something as small as a suitcase. The average meth ``cook'' annually teaches an average of ten people how to make the drug. Typical ingredients include over-the-counter cold and asthma medications containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, in addition to red phosphorous, hydrochloric acid, drain cleaner, battery acid, lye, lantern fuel, and antifreeze. In fact, users of this drug are often not aware that they are potentially ingesting toxic chemicals. The toxic fumes emitted during manufacturing are highly flammable, even explosive, and can suffocate plants, animals, and even people. For my colleagues concerned about the environment, each pound of meth produced leaves behind five or six pounds of toxic waste. Meth ``cooks'' often pour leftover chemicals and byproduct sludge down drains in nearby plumbing, storm drains, or directly onto the ground, creating long-term hazards: the chemical waste can remain in our soil and groundwater for years. The average cost to clean up a methamphetamine laboratory ranges between $2,000 and $3,000. However, this does not include the ancillary costs of cleaning up a former laboratory. In February 2005, the Atlanta Police, U.S. Drug Enforcement, the MCS drug taskforce, and other law enforcement agencies discovered Georgia's first ``super lab'' at a house in Smyrna, Georgia, which is in the Congressional District I represent. With 39 pounds of meth-crystal and 250 gallons of the drug in liquid form, one mistake could have destroyed an entire neighborhood due to the explosive volatility of the materials. No longer just the addictive scourge of 1970's biker gangs, meth is a very real problem that affects our children and neighbors in very real ways. The drug works directly on the brain and spinal cord by interacting with neurotransmitters--chemical substances produced in nerve cells--which communicate throughout the body. The foremost neurotransmitter affected by methamphetamine is dopamine, which is involved with our natural reward system. This is known as the automatic nervous system. For example, a pat on the back for a job well done, getting enjoyment from family and social interactions, and the feeling that our lives are meaningful, all rely on dopamine transmission. With properties that target the nervous system, it should be no surprise that side affects of meth include extreme paranoia, violent behavior, rapid weight loss, tooth loss, hallucinations, unexplained voices, pale complexion, speech impediments, Parkinson's disease-like symptoms, depression, insomnia, suicide contemplation, and schizophrenia. It is important to mention these various symptoms and health problems because without proper clean-up unseen chemicals can spread from one home through entire neighborhoods, creating an unknown danger to current and future owners. Considering the numerous dangers caused by methamphetamines, I believe it is more important than ever to make sure our law enforcement community has the laws, equipment, and training necessary to protect our communities from this drug. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the House of Representatives for the passage of today's Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007, which includes substantive legislation that will establish voluntary guidelines to assist state and local governments in the development and implementation of policies for the clean-up of former methamphetamine laboratories. Mr. Costello. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 365, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act to initiate standards for methamphetamine (meth) cleanup in our neighborhoods. As a cosponsor of H.R. 365, I believe this legislation is necessary in order to protect unsuspecting families from the dangers of illegal meth labs and provide the necessary tools for law enforcement to detect labs throughout our communities. As a member of the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine and a former law enforcement official, I am actively working with my colleagues to decrease methamphetamine use. In my home state of Illinois, there were 1,189 methamphetamine laboratory seizures reported in 2005, many in my district in Southern Illinois. In order to combat meth, I believe we need a comprehensive plan to deal with the environmental, health, and law enforcement challenges facing our communities because of the growing use of this dangerous drug. Mr. Speaker, the national guidelines this bill creates will help protect our communities by ensuring that dangerous meth labs are cleaned properly and efficiently. It is my continued hope that by raising national awareness about meth and providing increased federal resources to combat the drug problem, we can make significant progress to overcome methamphetamine use. This legislation is a critical step we can take toward this goal and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 365.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. And I want to take just a second to join my colleagues from Georgia and particularly the two that are on the floor tonight, Dr. Price and Representative Westmoreland, in saying to our colleague Charlie Norwood that we are praying for you, buddy. All of us from Georgia, but every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle are praying that the miracle of God's healing will deliver you back to us soon, and we think about you constantly. Mr. Speaker, this hour is a great opportunity for us to discuss the budget. And I had an opportunity this morning to be on the C-SPAN program, and the host said to me, Congressman, are you aware of the fact that one of the Members of the other body has recommended that maybe we need something called a war tax to pay for our Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom? And I said to the host, I know that has probably been done in the history of this country. Maybe it was necessary to fund a previous war. But the thing about this President and this administration is because of these economic principles of cutting taxes and growing revenue, fortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have been able to do this without raising the people's taxes. And I certainly commend President Bush for that foresight and wisdom and the former majority party as we supported those tax cuts when it was predicted that it would cost the economy over a 10-year period something like $1.3 trillion. So what I would like to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle in particular as I wrap up quickly, and I know time is limited, on the defense budget, please, please do not cut future combat systems. Don't cut our missile defense system to pay for some social programs when the defense of this Nation is so important at this time of war. With that, I really appreciate my colleague giving me the opportunity to weigh in tonight.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Grace Carter Dawkins, a native of Greenville, GA. Mrs. Dawkins recently passed away, leaving behind a long legacy of compassion and spirited involvement in her community. Mrs. Dawkins had a big heart and a willingness to help others. As a teacher in Newnan and Atlanta, she not only taught home economics and served as a class sponsor, but she helped sew prom dresses for the students and cooked up delicious meals for class banquets. Grace was also deeply involved with her church, Brinson Chapel, where she lent her passion for service to the church's missionary, senior, and community outreach programs. Madam Speaker, I've had the honor to experience Grace's generous personality first-hand, and I know her loving acts of kindness will be felt in Greenville for many years to come. I also know Grace's husband, Robert, her sister, Gloria Carter Morris, and her three brothers, Rufus, Earnest, and Willie Carter, will keep her memory strong. Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in honoring the compassion, charity, and joy of Grace Carter Dawkins's life.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in the other body yesterday, under the leadership of Senator Reid, the gentleman from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, had a resolution supporting the funding of our troops, and the Senate leadership prevented that resolution from being brought to the floor under regular order because they wanted first to bring a resolution condemning the President. Now the Speaker of the House has announced that next week we will have a resolution brought to the floor of this body condemning the President's plan for a new way forward in Iraq. I challenge the Speaker and the Democratic leadership, if that resolution is on this floor, to bring forward also the resolution of a true war hero, Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, supporting the continued funding of the troops in Iraq. We have heard Members on the other side of the aisle continue to say we can and will, if necessary, cut off funding. This will give them an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn an unconscionable commercial from last night's Super Bowl. Some ads were good, some ads were bad; but this one was very ugly. For those who missed it, an antiwar political action committee ran an ad claiming, and this is a direct quote: ``If you support escalation, you don't support the troops.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, that couldn't be farther from the truth. Supporting additional troops in Iraq is supporting one final surge to push the Iraqi people over the threshold of violence and deliver the best shot for a more stable Middle East. Let me assure you that the veterans in this commercial do not speak for the veterans in my district, nor do they speak for the soldiers that I visited in Iraq or Walter Reed, nor do they speak for our military commanders. But, Mr. Speaker, what disturbs me most about this commercial is that it wasn't just broadcast to those of us watching the game from the comfort of our living rooms and our homes. It was broadcast to the troops watching the game in Iraq. Our troops should know that the United States military strategy will not be determined by political groups buying air time during the Super Bowl. I support victory in Iraq, and this final surge may be our best last chance to achieve it.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and the underlying resolution. No amendments allowed, no committee hearings, no committee votes taken, all we have is simply a closed rule, a closed process, a bunch of broken promises. So here we go again, Mr. Speaker. Once more, Members of the House find themselves with really no good choices, forced to accept the ``our way or the highway'' mentality of the new majority, despite their promises to do otherwise. As if the majority's broken promises for civility and openness in the people's House wasn't disconcerting enough, this continuing resolution is one giant broken promise. For instance, the Democrats promise no earmarks in this continuing resolution. They even include ``window-dressing'' language to that effect for the purpose of their talking points and sound bites. Yet, on closer inspection, one realizes that, while this resolution does eliminate earmarks for organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, various law enforcement programs, schools and hospitals, it somehow still provides funding for several notorious million-dollar earmarks such as the Bridge to Nowhere. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic rationale for picking at which earmarks stay and which earmarks go strikes me as bizarre and hypocritical, to say the least. Even more troubling, this continuing resolution shortchanges our military, their families and our communities transitioning under the BRAC process by almost $3.1 billion, not to mention an additional billion dollar shortfall for military construction. Clearly, the majority has a ``tough love'' philosophy when it comes to our military, their families and the war on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, we could have even fixed some of these problems right here, right now if Members had been allowed to offer amendments. But I guess that is not the way it works in this moveon.org Congress.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I had one other request for time, but he is detained at this point. Right now, I don't have any other speakers. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. And I hope I won't offend the gentleman, but just as he is pointing out, these earmarks are there but they are selected, in this instance, by one person. And as you start enumerating a few, like the ones that you have already mentioned, I have got to also say that the tropical rainforest in Iowa is back at $44.6 million. Now, I don't know how the gentleman feels about that one, but that is the whole point here. A CR is supposed to save money. It is literally supposed to save the taxpayers money, because instead of increasing the amount of spending at a rate of inflation or consumer price index, you go back to the last year and you just continue that process. So, in fact, if we had done that, if we had this year-long CR, we are talking about maybe saving $6.1 billion. But, no, what the Democratic leadership of a committee of one or two decides to do is under that budget cap authority to plus this thing all the way up from 2006 levels to the budget cap, and that is an additional $6.11 billion burden on the taxpayer. As I mentioned earlier, I won't repeat the phrase I used in referencing this bill. But people are going to call it all kind of things in addition to CRomnibus. But really it is a CR on steroids. Maybe we should call it a steroid. And with that I will turn it back over to the gentleman from Iowa for the continuation of this discussion

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to point out, and I am sure the gentleman would agree with me, that there are things in this so-called CR that we approve of. As I look through the list, and of course, I have got a lot more looking to do, but as I see things like an increase in Pell Grants to $260 up to $4,310, I think that is good. And additional funding for the Head Start program. And I could go on and on and on. There are a number of things here that I see that I could vote in favor of, but there are a number that I would be opposed to. And just as the gentleman points out, especially for the new Members on both sides of the aisle to not have an opportunity to go through regular order and a committee markup process, go to the Rules Committee with their amendments, I am talking now about majority Member amendments, things that they have heard about, as you pointed out, Mr. King, from their constituents, as they campaigned for the very first time for Congress and the excitement of that, and you pointed that out as well. It is just sad. It really is sad. And if it wasn't so sad, it would be almost laughable. So I just want to say that, again, it is not that, as I register tomorrow my vote against this, it is unfortunate because there are some things in here that I would be in favor of. But I am going to be voting against the usurp of power and putting the process under the jackboot of the new majority.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for leading this Iowa Special Order, particularly in regard to what is going to be on the floor of this body tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, and that is this $463 billion monstrosity that, as the gentleman has already pointed out, gives no opportunity for Members of this body to have any input. We heard all this rhetoric, as we started the 110th, about the need to pass those six per six bumper sticker issues that the Democratic majority had tested, had poll tested, that drew 75, 80 percent approval rating; so that was their justification of closing down the process and bundling all of those bills, H.R. 1 through 6, in a single rule, a single closed rule, and no opportunity for even Members on their own side of the aisle, the Democratic majority, the new Members of the Democratic majority, to have a voice and represent their constituents. I think it is appalling, Mr. Speaker, that they would do that. But, also, as we railed against that process in the first 2 weeks, we had the assurance over and over again of the leadership of the Democratic majority that once they got through with their 100 hours, and as Representative King has pointed out, we are up to 147 hours now, where is the fairness that they promised? Where is the open process? Here this $463 billion so-called CR or, in layman's terms, continuing resolution, gets posted on the Internet at 11 o'clock last night. I don't think that Members of this body were sitting up holding their breath every 15 minutes checking on the Internet to see if Mr. Obey had finally posted the bill so that Members could see it and look at it and analyze it, study it, and hopefully come forward through the Rules Committee. Certainly there was no committee process in what they have done here. And I do not know, maybe my colleagues can answer this question in just a minute, but I know the Rules Committee did meet today, and I am not going to hold my breath counting the number of amendments that were made in order. But this is unconscionable, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it is not a CR. A CR would be a continuing resolution to continue to fund the government at last year's level. In fact, that would indeed save money. That would save the taxpayers money. This is no CR. A CR is three or four pages long. In fact, the last time we had a CR to cover an entire fiscal year was under the Democratic leadership back in 1987 and 1988. I don't know how long those bills were, but I do not think they were 123 pages, as this monstrosity is, Mr. Speaker. I have heard this thing called a lot of terms other than a CR. I have heard some refer to it as a ``CRomnibus.'' To me, and maybe my colleagues can understand this better because ``CRomnibus'' is a little difficult to decipher, it looks like a hooker dressed up like a nun. Now, I hope everybody can understand what I am talking about there. This is an appalling embarrassment to this body. And the Democratic majority talked about, in December and leading up to the election before that, how, give them the opportunity to lead this body and they will absolutely eliminate earmarks, totally eliminate earmarks in finishing up the fiscal 2007 and the fiscal 2008 budget. This is a giant earmark, or if you want to call it an ``Obeymark.'' There are so many things in here. And, of course, you know we have had since about 9 o'clock this morning when people came to work, maybe a little earlier for some of us insomniacs, to study this bill. And the devil is, of course, in the details.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I know he is limited in time, and I know our colleague from Florida is here, as well, and possibly other Members will be coming to weigh in on this. But this is appalling, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. I mean, the Democratic majority has talked about opening up this process and not doing as we did, as they say we did; but dawn of a new day, to start a new open process of bipartisanship. Whether they were truthful in that or not, I think if you say that, if you make that pledge as you ask people to vote or, in many instances, replace somebody on our side of the aisle, then you need to fulfill that contract. That indeed was a pledge that has already been broken. And it does not have to be that way. It absolutely does not have to be that way. So I thank the gentleman for allowing me to weigh in on this issue. With that, I will turn it back over to Mr. King and continue this dialogue with my colleagues. Thank you.