Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to once again thank Mr. Hostettler for sponsoring the Public Expression of Religion Act and Chairman Sensenbrenner for bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, the principles of life, liberty, and property make up the foundation of our constitutional Republic. Under liberty, we are guaranteed the freedom to worship as we please, a freedom that should be protected and not taken for granted. The freedom of religion is one of the positive social institutions in our country, and we should encourage this constitutional protection throughout the world. Almost every State in the Union has chosen to acknowledge God within its State constitutions. However, too often today, overzealous courts have infringed upon an individual's right to worship. Courts have attempted to ban holiday decorations reflecting religious traditions such as Christmas carols or Hanukkah songs from school events. Federal courts have demanded the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses across our country, sought to remove the words ``in God we trust'' from our currency, as well as remove emblems from State seals, flags and logos. As I stated earlier, these attacks on our religious heritage are frivolous and unwarranted. For every decision a court makes, there are countless out-of-court settlements and even more pending lawsuits aimed at removing anything that acknowledges a divine authority. The debate over religious freedom is old and contentious, but it should be fair. When organizations like the ACLU are rewarded, rewarded, for filing lawsuits, it is not a fair debate. Congress needs to close that loophole, to restore impartiality to our system of justice, and it needs to act on preventing frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act, will help protect the freedom of religion, restore impartiality and reduce lawsuits. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1038 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1038 is a closed rule. It allows 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 1038 also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, as you and many others may have noticed, if you look up from the front podium, in the center of the molding above the gallery is a sculpture of Moses, the man who freed the slaves in Egypt and introduced God's law to man. Moses is at the forefront of all of the great legal scholars depicted in this Chamber because of his responsibilities as both a religious leader and the custodian of God's law. The Ten Commandments are the foundation of common law and the ``rights endowed by our Creator.'' However, in recent decades, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols, and religious liberties in general have been under attack. More specifically, they have been under attack by the same interests that claim to represent civil liberties and free speech. On July 19, 2005, a month after the Supreme Court ruled on the two Kentucky Ten Commandments cases, United States District Court Judge William O'Kelley ruled in my home State of Georgia that the courthouse in Barrow County, my daughter-in-law's home, had to remove a framed poster of the Ten Commandments and awarded the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, $150,000. Mr. Speaker, small counties like Barrow cannot afford these costly lawsuits; and my daughter-in-law's parents, Emory and Pat House of Winder, Georgia, experienced an increase in their taxes to help pay for these court costs and the legal fees. This past July, we had a debate over legislation to preserve the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, from having to remove a cross. Mr. Speaker, one can only wonder how those Korean War veterans, many of whom gave their lives for this country, might have felt had that cross been removed from their memorial cemetery. Thankfully, Mr. Hunter's legislation passed and was signed into law, but I am stunned at how far our society has fallen when people are compelled to sue a major city to have a cross removed from, of all places, a memorial cemetery. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to allow frivolous and, frankly, unwarranted lawsuits to stifle the beliefs and self-determination of our great communities. This is a textbook example of an issue that needs to be addressed by this Congress. I have always believed that one man's rights end where another man's rights begin, and we need to draw the line to clarify our first amendment and ensure impartiality for legal challenges. The rule we are debating today would allow for the consideration of H.R. 2679, the Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Act of 2006. I want to thank Mr. Hostettler for sponsoring this legislation and Chairman Sensenbrenner for the opportunity to discourage frivolous obstruction to our constitutional rights of religious expression. The Public Expression of Religion Act would prevent Federal courts from awarding monetary relief to parties claiming violations based on the constitutionally prohibited ``establishment of religion.'' In addition, H.R. 2679 would prevent plaintiffs who have won such claims from being awarded attorneys' fees and so-called court expenses. However, what is more concerning is when a defendant decides, a city or county like Barrow and Winder, Georgia, to settle without challenging the frivolous accusations not because they could not win but because they cannot match the challenger's legal war chest. H.R. 2679 will ensure that each party in an Establishment Clause lawsuit shoulders its own costs. Mr. Speaker, beyond the issue of religious expression, this is an issue about lawsuit reform. We need to move away from this current sue- or-be-sued society, which offers little to no repercussions for those seeking financial gain or the advancement of some personal or political agenda. As many of my colleagues know, before being elected to this Congress, I had a career as an OB/GYN physician. Most of my patients thought I was a successful, good doctor, but I was in constant fear of medical liability lawsuits, like many of my colleagues, and struggled to make these exorbitant malpractice insurance payments. As a result, one of my primary objectives as a retired doctor now and Member of Congress is to help pass medical malpractice reform and, as a direct result, reduce the cost of health care. What we have with the Establishment Clause litigation is very similar, because the multiple lawsuits tie up our court system and they affect everybody. Mr. Speaker, the United States Constitution is a revolutionary and sacred document on many levels. Our Founding Fathers had great foresight when they designed our government. The first amendment is an absolute right and should not be misinterpreted to allow these attacks on our freedom of religion. The attack on our religious heritage is just as wrong as denying a person the freedom to worship. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And it is my hope that with the passage of this legislation we can prevent future Barrow County rulings and preserve our Nation's heritage. I ask my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talking about the rights of people to sue, and that this bill would discourage that right because we are taking away the ability to recover monetary damages or legal fees and court costs, the American Civil Liberties Union probably files most of these lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs. They have said very clearly that their motivation is not fees, is not compensation. If there were no fees involved, they would continue to file these lawsuits even though in many cases of course there are tremendous legal fees and court costs awarded, monetary damages. I want to just, Mr. Speaker, in response to the previous speaker, list a few examples of what I am talking about. I mentioned already in my home State of Georgia, Barrow County of the $150,000 cost. And that small struggling county elected to defend themselves. And that is what it ended up costing them. Another example. The ACLU received $950,000 in a settlement with the city of San Diego in a case involving the San Diego Boy Scouts. The ACLU received $121,000 in Kentucky in a case to remove a Ten Commandments monument outside of the capitol. The ACLU and two other groups received nearly $550,000 in an Alabama case to remove the Ten Commandments from a courthouse. I could go on and on and on. But in regard to rights, this case as we will hear, I am sure, from the author of the legislation as we discuss the bill, is not about removing anybody's rights under the establishment clause, not at all. But we are talking about the rights of these small counties and cities, which represent a lot of people, and their ability to defend themselves when they have not violated the Constitution at all. The Constitution calls for a separation of church and state and a freedom from the imposition of a state religion, but it does not call for the total elimination of religion and the removal of a cross from a veterans cemetery in San Diego. Mr. Speaker, if we continue down this line, pretty soon Moses will be removed from this Chamber based on the same argument. So I say to my friend from the other side that we need a balancing of rights. That is what this is all about. Let's level the playing field. We are not eliminating anybody's constitutional rights under the establishment clause. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Berry College in Rome, Georgia, which this year was named as one of the top two colleges in the South by the prestigious U.S. News and World Report rankings. For those of us who know Berry College, this honor comes as no surprise. This past spring I had the honor of addressing Berry College at the 2006 graduation ceremony. I was incredibly impressed by the student body. Berry is helping mold engaged, eager, driven students into the kind of leaders our communities are fortunate to have. Berry College's founder and namesake, Martha Berry, once noted that education combines the head, the heart, and the hands. I know Berry students are receiving a superior education that combines high-quality academic learning with moral and spiritual growth and experience and worthwhile service to others. This makes Berry not only one of the top colleges in the South but in the Nation as well. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in congratulating Berry's president, Stephen Briggs, and the students, faculty, staff, and alumni that have made Berry College into a premier educational institution.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to once again thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Dreier, and the House leadership for continuing the debate in favor of securing our borders. The pattern in recent years has been to address the issue of immigration and border security once a decade. In 1986 we had an immigration reform bill. In 1996 we had an immigration reform bill. But the results at best were mixed, and this year we have yet another opportunity to get it right. Ninety percent of the American people are demanding that we secure our borders and secure our borders now. The legislation offered under this rule will help our current agents detain and apprehend criminals, not just those crossing in search of work, Mr. Speaker, but truly dangerous individuals as well. Security on our borders remains a crisis. Our agents on the border need our help. Our constituents are forcefully voicing their support for immigration reform, with an emphasis on border security. And I ask my colleagues, please support this rule and the underlying bills so we can start to solve this problem and solve it now.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1018 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1018 provides for consideration of H.R. 4830 under a closed rule. It allows 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, it waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides one motion to recommit H.R. 4830. In addition, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6094 under a closed rule. It allows 1 hour of debate in the House, again equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, it waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides one motion to recommit H.R. 6094. Finally, Madam Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6095 under a closed rule. It allows 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides one motion to recommit H.R. 6095. Madam Speaker, last December the House of Representatives debated and passed H.R. 4437, the Border Protection Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act with a 57-vote margin. However, despite phone calls and letters from constituents, our hard work in December met difficulty because some of our colleagues in the other body opted to support an amnesty program that simply cannot be substituted for border security. The need for immigration reform is critical and long overdue. I remind my colleagues that we need to secure our borders before we consider any other immigration proposal, of which amnesty should never be a part. Just about every congressional district in this country is affected by illegal immigration, not just border States. Securing our borders is not a Democratic versus Republican issue, and it is not about the election in 7 weeks. It is an issue of protecting our Nation and restoring integrity to our system of immigration. If immigration were a Republican issue, 64 Democrats would not have voted last week for the Secure Fence Act. Indeed, we are a Nation of immigrants, but we are also a Nation of laws based on the principles found in the United States Constitution. In 1986, President Reagan pushed for reforms to address the problem of illegal immigration. In 1996, the 104th Congress pushed for more reforms. And now, 10 years later, this Congress once again has an opportunity to debate how to best secure our borders and remove incentives for illegal immigration by enacting these meaningful changes. Today this Congress continues an ongoing and difficult debate, and I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Dreier for the bills being considered under this rule, H.R. 6094, the Community Protection Act of 2006, H.R. 6095, the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006, finally H.R. 4830, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006. Together, these three bills, along with the Secure Fence Act we passed last week, reaffirm some of the highlights from the House-passed legislation in December, almost a year ago. By addressing these issues separately, we have a better chance of achieving at least some degree of immigration reform in 2006. Procrastinating or ignoring this problem will simply not make it go away. Every day we put off debating and passing immigration reform creates more and more opportunities for illegal immigrants to break our laws and violate our borders. Each and every one of these offenses has social, economic and, indeed, security repercussions. For instance, according to the United States Census Bureau release last month, there are an estimated 795,419 illegal immigrants who live in my home State of Georgia, almost double the same estimate from 2 years ago. During the August district work period, I had an opportunity to visit some of the more porous areas on our southern border with my colleague Mr. Sodrel from Indiana and Mr. Price from Georgia. After meeting with Border Patrol and Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents, inspecting the infrastructure, checking out places for improvement, the most important lesson that we learned was that with the right tools and with the right manpower, securing our border can be a reality, and it is not a lost cause, as some would suggest. The morale of these dedicated men and women who are protecting our southern border is at an all-time high, because, as they said to us, Congress is finally paying attention. Some of the improvements needed include more Border Patrol agents, more fencing and uniform penalties for smugglers, it is unbelievable that we don't already have that, and removing the question of jurisdiction for local law enforcement, an issue that my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Norwood, in his CLEAR Act has just emphasized over and over again and, thank goodness, was part of our original bill in December. We also need more on-site immigration judges, we are woefully inadequate in that manpower, border tunnel detection and criminal detention and removal. The three bills we are considering under this bill address many of the problems that Customs and Border Patrol and ICE agents brought to our attention during that August trip to the three sectors of our border with Mexico. The Community Protection Act of 2006 includes language from the Dangerous Alien Detention Act, the Criminal Alien Removal Act, and the Alien Gang Removal Act. One of the most eye-opening moments on my tour of the border was seeing the transport of prisoners at an airport in El Paso, Texas. An airplane landed with prisoners for Mexico and so-called OTMs, other countries south of the border. These individuals were not being held and deported just simply because they had illegally crossed the border seeking jobs. No, these individuals were being sent back to their home countries after serving out sentences in this country for rape, murder, child molestation, and grand larceny. The scenario addressed in H.R. 6094 would involve detaining individuals with similar offenses and also, also, Madam Speaker, in cases of highly contagious diseases and mental illnesses, detaining them longer than current law allows, a 6-month limit which begins when they are ordered removed. This legislation would make sure that these criminals are not released back into our society because of that 6- month rule to cause serious safety problems in our local communities. Also included in H.R. 6095 is the Alien Gang Removal Act to deport alien gang members such as MS-13 and prevent them from being protected under this out-dated asylum law that we are burdened with. It is important to stop these gang members from entering and staying in the United States so that we can make progress toward not only deterring violent crime, but also the spread of the methamphetamine plague. The Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006 would reaffirm, indeed, codify, the authority of local law enforcement officers to have jurisdiction in Federal immigration laws, Charlie Norwood's CLEAR Act. Many officers want to enforce immigration law, but they fear repercussions at the Federal level. This language would allow local officers to assist Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents apprehending and removing illegal aliens from our cities and local communities, in essence, Madam Speaker, to deputize them and codify it. Also included in H.R. 6095 is language to end this catch-and-release system that I mentioned earlier and expedite the process of removal of illegal immigrants. The legislation includes the Alien Smuggler Prosecution Act to create uniform guidelines, let me repeat, to create uniform guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses. On our trip to the southern border, we had a night tour at the Arizona sector. In our group, Congressman Sodrel, the gentleman from Indiana, Congressman Price from Georgia and myself, we watched agents catch an individual trying to bring close to 400 pounds of marijuana into this country. The reason why, we were told by Customs and Border Patrol agents, that he chose 400 pounds was because in that particular area, in that particular county, there would be no prosecution for anything less than 500 pounds. So he was playing it safe, gaming the system, if you will. While some areas prosecute for 5 pounds, others will not budge for anything under 500. So we are addressing this problem of smuggling. We need uniform and stringent guidelines to prevent these smugglers from overwhelming certain areas of the border; and as I said, they are attempting to use this loophole to game the system. That has got to stop, Madam Speaker. Finally, Border Tunnel Prevention Act, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006 introduced by Chairman Dreier to address the problem of these border tunnels. H.R. 4830 would increase penalties for border tunnel construction, with up to 20 years' imprisonment. One of the agents I met in Nogales, Arizona, mentioned that they really need more tools to combat border tunnel construction, tougher penalties and a means to detect tunnels before their completion. Often organized crime on both sides of the United States-Mexican border will invest substantial resources into the construction of tunnels for drug smuggling and human trafficking. The tunnels, if we find them, they are filled with cement as soon as they are detected, but we don't know how many pounds of drugs or the number of illegal immigrants have made it through the tunnel before it was closed for business. Despite the aggressive nature of our Border Patrol, it is still difficult for them to detect tunnels and discourage their construction. H.R. 4830 takes the first step by increasing the penalties for that construction. Madam Speaker, once again, I reiterate that border security is eminently doable. Our Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents are making progress, but they still need help. They know that border security is possible, and they work long hours trying to achieve that goal. Our Border Patrol has not given up on us, and it is important for Congress not to give up on them. The three bills we are considering today will help them tremendously. So I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please support this rule and support the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume to respond to a couple of the comments that my good friend made in regard to the point of the Senate-passed bill that is more acceptable, the so-called comprehensive reform bill. Well, I will tell you, my colleague said that would be more acceptable. That comprehensive reform bill, by the way, is just a euphemism for amnesty, and 90 percent of my constituents would beg to differ with him, and I think that is true across this country. He also made the point about this Congress not doing its work and taking off tomorrow. Well, he knows and all of us know that the reason we are not going to be in session tomorrow is because the leadership of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, in deference to the fact that tomorrow is a high Jewish holiday, that we not be in so that people could worship and observe these holidays. So it is disingenuous these things that my good friend and colleague is mentioning. The other thing about going to conference with the Senate. Well, he knows that in the Senate bill there is a revenue provision which makes their bill unconstitutional. If they want to remove that provision and then send that bill back over, we can go to conference. So it is just a game that they are playing. My colleague also, and he is perfectly within his rights to do this, he talks about some issues that are more important to him and maybe to his party and his leadership and brings up the issue of the minimum wage and a stand-alone minimum wage bill. Madam Speaker, if we solve this problem of porous borders and prevent these millions of illegal immigrants from flooding into this country, taking jobs away from American citizens and legal immigrants and, in the process, driving down wages, if we can stop that hemorrhaging, then we will not need to increase the minimum wage because it will be increased automatically by employers. So he wants to take a rifle approach and say we are taking a shotgun approach. We are going to get the job done, and we are going to solve many of these problems with this bill. Madam Speaker, I proudly yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), my good friend who knows of what he speaks in regard to immigration and secure borders.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who, in his capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, held hearings in August.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, at this time I want to proudly yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as we continue debate over immigration and border security, it is important to remember the security of the ballot box. Most importantly, we need to uphold the concept of the citizen voter, which is the foundation, of course, of our democracy. Voting in our democratic government needs to be preserved for United States citizens to protect the legitimacy of the voting process as well as the interests of the United States. One of the first bills I introduced, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, was the Voter Verification Act to address concerns about noncitizens voting and reaffirm that only United States citizens have the right to vote. The Voter Verification Act simply stated that before voting in a Federal election, a citizen has to provide proof of citizenship. Whether the proof of citizenship is a birth certificate, a passport or a driver's license from a State that limits driver's licenses to citizens, the important point is to make sure our election workers are checking credentials before allowing people to vote. This bill is slightly different from the Voter Verification Act, but it is very similar, and I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Hyde of Illinois, for introducing H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, and, of course, as well as Chairman Ehlers. In Georgia, Governor Perdue has twice signed legislation to address the issue of voter registration. Since Georgia requires proof of citizenship before any method of voter registration, the concern is matching a registration card to a legitimate photo identification card. Combine the REAL ID Act, which passed earlier in this Congress to mandate secure and reliable State identification cards, with the Georgia ID law, starting this November the State I represent has a better system for knowing who is voting in our elections as well as a means for deterring illegal voters. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe we need to preserve and limit the right to vote to citizens. The right to vote is a sacred right, and we need to preserve its integrity. I ask my colleagues, support this rule and the underlying legislation. And, yes, I have finally found an issue on which I agree with former President Jimmy Carter.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call on the House and Senate to quickly pass the right kind of military tribunal legislation. We are in a war for the future of civilization, and military tribunals provide the best way for us to bring brutal terrorists to justice and to prevent future attacks on our citizens. Military commissions have been successfully used throughout United States history to bring dangerous war criminals to justice. President Roosevelt used them in 1942 to try eight German saboteurs who plotted to attack the United States. In fact, military commissions have been used by President Lincoln and even General George Washington. Now Congress must allow this same power to our modern-day Presidents. The right kind of military tribunal legislation can help us to disrupt actual terrorist plots right here in America; access critical information on al Qaeda; and prevent handing over Top Secret information to men like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, one of the masterminds of September 11. September 11 was one of the darkest days in United States history. We must give our military the power to continue preventing other devastating attacks.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1000, a resolution providing for earmark reform in the U.S. House of Representatives. I want to say that I support this resolution because I take my responsibility to allocate the hard-earned money of the residents of Georgia's 11th District very, very seriously. There are fundamental duties of the Federal Government, tasks that the American people cannot do individually, but they rely on the collective strength of our Nation's capital to accomplish. Some of these tasks are national security, ensuring the safety of our citizens at home and abroad, and maintaining our national highways and infrastructure. However, over the years, the Federal Government has expanded this definition to encompass many extraneous projects that cannot be defended. Mr. Speaker, there is a reason earmarks have become such an integral part of the appropriation and authorization process in Congress. It is because each individual Member of Congress knows what is needed in their own districts better than anyone else. It is for this reason that I fully support this legislation, because it does not outlaw earmarks. Rather, it represents reform that is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, I have submitted earmark requests on behalf of my constituents, but I have always tried to prioritize these projects in an effort to maintain my credibility as a trustworthy steward of the taxpayer dollars. So I rise today not to condemn the earmark process, but rather to applaud the legislation that inherently reforms it. This legislation takes a stand for transparency in an effort to curb the current trend of frivolous Federal spending. Congress always needs to remember to whom we are ultimately accountable, and because of this legislation, Congress will be able to restore that full credibility.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on December 16, 2005, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, by a vote of 239-182. Included in the final version of that bill was an amendment that was offered by Mr. Hunter, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Goode, Mr. Royce and myself to construct a high-tech security fence along the most populated and in-need parts of our border. This past August, I had the opportunity to visit the border fence in San Diego, California, and I can vouch for its effectiveness. I agree that it may not be cost effective or even necessary to line our whole northern and southern borders with a security fence, but in the most populated areas where there is not much room separating two cities, like Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego, California, a secure border fence would be a valuable investment because it provides our Border Patrol the time necessary to apprehend smugglers and others crossing the border illegally. I commend Chairman King and the House leadership for revisiting this issue, because it is the most basic and effective means for securing our border, in this Congress. Like locking the door to your house before turning on the alarm, it only makes sense to begin enforcement of our borders with physical barriers. Mr. Speaker, we need to stop the fluidness of our borders before we consider any other immigration idea. In the words of a doctor, we need to stop the bleeding before we can stitch the wound. Constructing barriers on our borders is a critical first step toward curing this patient.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2006. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary which is now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendments and shall be considered as read. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution, and it provides that the amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and allows one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, today we will debate reforming a government-owned corporation called UNICOR, which is more commonly known as the Federal Prison Industries. Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, manufactures products and provides services that are sold to the executive agencies in the Federal Government. When the Federal prison system was established at the turn of the 20th century, factories were erected in Federal prisons to manufacture products for the Federal Government. President Roosevelt consolidated Federal Prison Industries into UNICOR in 1934 to provide training opportunities for inmates, control inmate behavior, and diversify production. In fiscal year 2005, Federal Prison Industries generated $765 million in sales with all revenue reinvested in the purchase of raw materials and wages for inmates and staff. As of 2004, there were 102 UNICOR factories at 71 different correctional facilities working on operations such as metals, furniture, electronics, textiles and graphic arts. UNICOR currently employs 19,720 inmates, or 17 percent of eligible Federal prisoners, at a rate of 23 cents to $1.15 an hour and, by charter, must be economically self-sustaining without any Federal appropriations. So, Mr. Speaker, the problem with the current system is the adverse impact it has had on small businesses which do not have the ability to compete with UNICOR's guaranteed market, even if they could provide a better deal for our government agencies. Mr. Hoekstra introduced H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005, with the fundamental objective of correcting this problem by eliminating the requirement for Federal agencies to purchase products from UNICOR under most circumstances. H.R. 1829, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003 passed by a vote of 350-65 in the 108th Congress, and it is almost identical to this Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005, the notable exception being the authorization of a new work-based employment preparation program for Federal inmates where private sector firms can enter into agreements with UNICOR to prepare inmates to reenter society through real-world work and apprenticeships. The Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act would change the 1934 statute of Federal Prison Industries by requiring UNICOR to compete, let me repeat, to compete for business opportunities instead of relying on a mandatory government purchasing, prohibits inmate labor from being sold separate from inmate products, provides more remedial education and vocational training opportunities for inmates, authorizes alternative inmate work opportunities in support of nonprofit community service organizations, and it allows the Attorney General oversight and discretion to award individual source contracts should UNICOR lose a contract and endanger the safety of a Federal correctional institution. It establishes a $2.50 per hour minimum wage for prisoners who are within 2 years of release. It raises the maximum wage to half of the Federal minimum wage for all inmates by September 30, 2008, and equal to the Federal minimum wage by 2013. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it increases the ability for public comment on proposed Federal Prison Industries expansions and ensures direct access to these comments by the board of directors. Considering our Nation's tradition on promoting fair competition and with the support of organizations and business interests such as the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Coalition for Government Procurement, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Uniform and Textile Service Association, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the Prison and Justice Fellowship, it should be reasonable to apply good business practices to prison labor. Beyond fair competition, it is important to modernize the Federal Prison Industries program for this 21st century. UNICOR has operated on the same base model since 1934, despite diverse changes in labor and technology. Our Federal prisoners are beyond the days of simply stamping a license plate for a penny a day. If we are to remain committed to rehabilitation and our Federal system of prisons, then we need a serious commitment to give prisoners reasonable work skills, reinforce acceptable behavior, and reinstate these prisoners to a real world work environment. Furthermore, we need a system that is business friendly and is cost effective to our Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to vote for swift passage of this rule, and, of course, H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2006. I, Mr. Speaker, stand in support for both the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Florida knows, we have passed I guess it is 10 out of 11. We may have one appropriations bill that has not passed the House. All of the rest have. We are waiting on the Senate. We are very confident that we will next week, given the leader's colloquy for what our schedule is, I can't say for sure, but it is my understanding we will be dealing with both the Homeland Security appropriation and the Department of Defense appropriation next week. As I pointed out, we have passed all of these appropriations bills. We have done our work and we will continue to do our work. We are ready to receive those conference reports. In the meantime then, what are we to do? Is the gentleman suggesting we sit over here on the leadership majority side and do nothing? Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We are doing our work. This is a very important piece of legislation, and I want to thank my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for sponsoring it and for being a tireless champion of reform for Federal Prison Industries. As I discussed in my opening statement, it is important to protect the interests of business without diminishing the effectiveness of our Federal Prison Industries, also referred to as UNICOR. With H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005, this Congress has an opportunity to promote fair competition and to update UNICOR for the 21st century, as I said earlier. This body passed similar legislation with an overwhelming 350-65 majority. Federal Prison Industries are important for prisoner behavior control, for the safety of our Federal prison guards, and, furthermore, it serves as an opportunity, and this is most important, for inmates to learn skills necessary for life after prison. It helps reduce the number of repeat offenders and ultimately reduces the stress of our overcrowded prisons. My good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), of course, mentioned that in describing the facility in his district that is so needed. This current Federal Prison Industries system is outdated and it still operates off of the same executive order issued by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934. Considering the global economy and accounting for further changes and the needs and exchange of goods and services in this, the 21st century, it is important to update this program in order to preserve its efficiency for rehabilitating prisoners. The Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005 would preserve the successful formula of the current system with the checks and balances of a competitive market. It is no longer in the best interests of our government or Federal prisons to have a guaranteed artificial market. Our current system is not fair to small businesses who wish to compete for government contracts, it is not fair to the executive agencies trying to work within a tight budget, and it is not fair for the education of prisoners who need to learn new job skills and the nature of a competitive market. Outside of providing competition for outside businesses, H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005 would prohibit inmate labor from being sold separate from inmate products, it would provide more remedial education and vocational opportunities for inmates, and it would authorize alternative inmate work opportunities in support of nonprofit community service organizations. So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate the diverse support of H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005, including businesses, civic organizations and the unions. It is important to pass legislation to reform Federal Prison Industries in order to sustain the program for the 21st century. I ask my colleagues, please support this rule and the underlying legislation

Mr. GINGREY. Of course, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of closing. The gentleman says that is not the most important thing, and I don't disagree with him. I think it is very important. It is not the most important thing. Of course, a lot of ``the most important things'' that he has mentioned this Republican majority has brought to the floor of this House and we have passed, some of that, most of it actually, in a bipartisan way, with support from the other side.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Haralson County, Georgia, which this year is celebrating its 150th anniversary. One hundred fifty years ago, back in 1856, the Georgia General Assembly created Haralson County from parts of Carroll and Polk Counties. Haralson County is forever tied to the statesman of its founding. The county was named after a distinguished soldier and a United States Congressman, Hugh Haralson, and the county's seat, Buchanan, was named several years later after President James Buchanan. Mr. Speaker, one of the most recognizable sites in the city of Buchanan is the courthouse, built in 1891, and currently listed on the National Register of Historic Sites. The courthouse is symbolic of Haralson County, for as the county has grown and changed over the past 150 years, it has never lost sight of its history and founding. And though the county's founders might not recognize some of the recent additions, like the Honda plant, I know they would feel right at home in the warm communities that populate this county. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and all of my colleagues join me in congratulating the citizens of Bremen, Buchanan, Tallapoosa, Waco, and all of Haralson County on this historic occasion

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying resolution. As we just marked the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attack launched against the United States, it is more important than ever that we stand united in condemning terrorism as we engage in this epic battle for the future of civilization. In this war on terror, Mr. Speaker, we are not in a battle of civilizations, we are in a battle for civilization, and our enemies are actively and aggressively adjusting their tactics while waging their terrorist war of religious intolerance against the free nations of the world. Our government has achieved many successes in this war and we have made substantial progress. We have enacted strong legislation, including the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which created the Department of Homeland Security. We have strengthened our borders and ports through the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 and the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. We have funded our first responders in the amount of $41.5 billion. Our intelligence agencies are working together like never before, thanks in large part to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. While many of our political opponents have disagreed with our efforts, these changes are directly responsible for preventing another attack against our Nation since 9/11. Thanks to our counterterrorism techniques, the United States and our allies have foiled several terrorist plots, disrupted terrorist cells, including several in our own country, and brought many high-profile terrorists to justice. Just one month ago, Mr. Speaker, British authorities in London foiled a plot to blow up as many as 10 United States bound commercial airliners. The cooperation of British and American intelligence and counterterrorism authorities that led to the foiling of this plot is proof of two indisputable facts: First, we cannot let our guard down in the fight against terrorism; and, second, the steps Congress has taken since the tragic events of 9/11 are indeed working. It is therefore critically important, Mr. Speaker, that we continue giving America the tools it needs to fight the global war on terror. As stated by the 9/11 Commission, we must continue making strides and using terrorism finance as an intelligence tool. It is absolutely appalling that, in the light of this, 174 of my Democratic colleagues still voted against H. Res. 895, legislation supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs that track terrorists and condemning the publication of any classified information that could potentially impair the fight against terrorism. Not only did House Democrats vote against making the Committee on Homeland Security permanent at the beginning of this Congress, 120 of them opposed the creation of Homeland Security in the first place. Mr. Speaker, no matter how much we have at times disagreed on how to prosecute the war on terror, none of us will ever forget the attacks of September 11. Let me be clear. By supporting this resolution, we are standing strong and sending a message that we will continue fighting the terrorists. We will prevail no matter how long it takes. We are telling the terrorists that they will never again catch us off guard, and that an enemy committed to the death and destruction of the American way of life will not prevail. I know the strength of America, I know the strength of her people, and I know that we will be victorious in this fight for freedom. We must continue honoring the memory of those heroes who died on 9/11 by standing strong against terrorism and taking the fight to the enemy. This resolution simply reaffirms our commitment, and it deserves, as our chairman and Mr. Sessions said, the full support of this fight. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this rule and the underlying resolution.