Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Rhode Island, I greatly respect. The other side, making points about minimum wage or mental health parity and implying that these are the godly things to do, then I think in a way that they are inadvertently making my case. Let us go along with the wishes outlined in this bill to keep ``under God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance, as we stand up every day and honor our flag. That, indeed is what it is all about. I thank them for helping to make the case for this particular piece of legislation, H.R. 2389. I do hope that we have a recorded vote on the rule, and obviously on the bill, and I look forward to wide, maybe unanimous, bipartisan support on this issue. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just in response to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, a couple of weeks ago on another rule that I was managing, this same issue was brought up, had really nothing do with the subject at hand, but was in regard to the minimum wage. I pointed out in a little colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin that I did not vote for that congressional pay raise, and he said that he did not either. I just want to point out, this gentleman from Georgia, to the gentleman from Wisconsin that this just once again proves that cheese and crackers occasionally go good together. So I do not disagree with the gentleman on that particular point. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the author, the distinguished author, of this bill, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. GINGREY. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 920 is a structured rule, and it provides 1 hour of general debate that is equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their designees. This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it makes in order only those amendments that are printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report 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, 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. Further, it waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 920 and, of course, the underlying bill, H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005. Madam Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank my friend and colleague from Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, the author and lead sponsor of the underlying bill. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2389, I am glad to see that we will have the opportunity to set the record straight and defend our traditions against a few activist judges who would supplant the will of the people with their own personal agenda. Yesterday, this House had the opportunity to debate and vote on an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Unfortunately, the necessary two-thirds vote in support of the amendment simply was not there. While some may characterize yesterday's debate as an act of futility, I wholeheartedly disagree. Yesterday's vote put each and every Member of this House on record with their constituents and with the American people as to where they stand on defending our culture, on defending our values, against a few activist judges seeking to turn our society upside down. I make mention of this because I anticipate that the opponents of this underlying bill will attempt to make the same arguments against this bill as they did yesterday against the Marriage Protection Act. And, Madam Speaker, they were wrong yesterday, and they continue to be wrong today. The Pledge Protection Act, as well as the Marriage Protection Act, represents more than just the underlying issues of our Pledge of Allegiance or the traditional definition of marriage. These bills affirm that it is the American people, not a few activist judges, that have the right to create laws and establish the policies that will shape their lives. Now, I know that the opponents of this bill will also try to confuse and confound this debate by arguing that there are other more pressing things to consider and that this Congress has passed nothing of importance to the American people. Well, Madam Speaker, I have to ask myself, where were they? Where were these individuals when we passed H.R. 4297, that cut taxes and prevented tax increases for millions of Americans? Where were they when we passed lobbying reform out of this House with bipartisan support? Where were they when we passed out of this House comprehensive border security legislation? Where were they when we passed 10 of 11 appropriations bills that fund the operations of this government? Where were they when we passed legislation to increase oil production through domestic production and refinery capacity to bring down the price of gasoline? Madam Speaker, I could go on and on, but I believe I have made my point that this House has a proven track record of passing legislation important to the American people and their families, and the Pledge Protection Act simply builds upon that track record. H.R. 2389 will affirm the ability of Americans across this country to recite the Pledge of Allegiance anytime, anywhere, with or without the phrase ``one Nation under God.'' The point is, the individual will get to choose. Since the days of colonial America and the founding of this great Nation, the vast majority of our citizenry has celebrated and honored the role of Almighty God in shaping the history of this great land and defending her through many trials and tribulations and in lifting her up as a shining city on a hill. As our founders set forth in the Declaration of Independence, ``We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'' Madam Speaker, the recognition of a higher authority above human law and above temporal law is fundamental to the establishment and preservation of our fundamental rights and liberties. Those who would divorce the recognition of a higher authority from the rights he secures are guilty of throwing the baby out with the bath water. If our fundamental rights come from human beings, then human beings can take them away. But because our rights are endowed to us by our creator, no man, no woman, no government can take them away. Therefore, we in this Congress have an obligation to uphold the ability of citizens across this great land to recite and pledge their allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the author of the bill.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of the importance of the underlying bill, H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005. I want to express my appreciation to my colleagues who participated in the preceding debate on this rule, and I want to ask my colleagues to continue their participation as we move into the general debate. I also want to again commend Representative Akin, both a friend and a colleague, for leading the charge in defense of not only our Pledge of Allegiance, but also many of our time-honored traditions that are currently under assault by some activist judges, as he just enumerated. As I stated yesterday, we did not raise these issues; a few activist judges did when they decided to throw out precedent and make new law without one vote cast in either a legislature or at the ballot box. So it is now the responsibility of this Congress to stand up for the will of the American people and sanction our Pledge of Allegiance. Let us affirm this is ``one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: Previous Question on H. Res. 920, Rule for H.R. 2389 The Pledge Protection Act of 2005 At the end of the resolution add the following new section: ``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2429) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.''

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 920 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. I just wanted to respond to my friend from Florida. I didn't see that quote. I need to grab that newspaper that he was referring to. It sounds like I was either misquoted or my words were taken out of context. Yesterday I spoke several times, and I mainly was speaking about our value system as a great Nation. We were talking about values yesterday from my perspective and the image that we present to the rest of the world, and particularly at this time to the countries in the troubled Middle East. So I don't know what the exact quote was, but I just want to try to clarify that Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, to my good friend from Florida, at this time I have no additional speakers. I will reserve to close.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard on both sides reference, of course, to our Founding Fathers in this debate. Madam Speaker, deep concern that Federal judges might abuse their power has long been noted by America's most gifted observers, including Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Thomas Jefferson lamented that, this is the quote, ``the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped . . . '' In Jefferson's view, leaving the protection of individuals' rights to Federal judges employed for life was a serious error. Listen to what Abraham Lincoln said, Madam Speaker, in his first inaugural address in 1861. ``The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practical resigned their Government into the hands of eminent tribunal.'' That is the concern that we express today in this debate, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of West Georgia on its centennial anniversary. For the past 100 years, West Georgia has been educating some of our State's brightest minds, and I know the school will continue providing educational excellence for many years to come. West Georgia's roots are humble. In 1906, it was founded as the Fourth District A&M School, a charter member of the university system of Georgia. In January 1908, the school opened its doors to students, enrolling 52 boarding pupils and 58 day pupils. Those first students would hardly recognize West Georgia today, home to more than 10,000 pupils and over 100 programs of study. Yet despite the changes of the past 100 years, one thing has remained the same, and that is the dedication of the staff, faculty, students, and community. I want to congratulate university president Dr. Beheruz Sethna, the city of Carrollton, County of Carroll, and the entire West Georgia community on reaching this historic milestone. Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating the University of West Georgia, and here is to another 100 years of educating Georgia's students.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today proud to stand with our President to ensure that our society remains a people that values life. The President is a man of his word, and today he made good on his promise and he issued his first Presidential veto against H.R. 810, a move to protect the sanctity of human life. Mr. Speaker, over the last few days, I have had the privilege to meet and visit with the families of the so-called ``snowflake babies.'' These are children who started out life at frozen embryos, indeed no larger than the point of a pen, whose parents, instead of discarding these precious little lives, allowed them to be adopted. Each of these families has their own unique story. They are families who have longed for and prayed for children. They are families who now enjoy the blessings of these little ones' smiles and tears, laughter and heartbreak. These children represent what advocates of this bill see as unwanted leftovers, collateral damage on society's path to medical research called for in the Castle-DeGette bill. Mr. Speaker, the interesting aspect of this debate is that embryonic stem cell research does not have to divide this House of Representatives. I am here today to tell the American people that science has delivered the solution to this ethical divide. Scientists have made extraordinary advances in research that now allow them access to embryoniclike stem cells without destroying the human embryo. The answer that science has given us is that our government can have both, and, most importantly, so can the American people. Yesterday Members of this House, those who claim to be supporters of all types of embryonic stem cell research, stood in the way of a bill that would have funded these ethical and exciting new breakthroughs. Mr. Speaker, we need to sustain the President's veto, and I call for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do just that.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in full support of and recognition of the importance of this underlying amendment to our Constitution. I appreciate each and every one of my colleagues who spoke during the debate on this rule. I fully recognize that many of us will have to simply, yet respectfully, as I said, disagree. However, Mr. Speaker, I know that I stand today with the citizens of Georgia's 11th Congressional District, as well as the vast majority of Georgia and the Nation's citizens who continue to be outraged by the ability of a few judges to overturn our legal precedent and our traditional family values. In 2004, the people of Georgia affirmed with a vote of 76 percent to 24 percent that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman, and I proudly count myself among that 76 percent. I want to close this debate by reminding my colleagues that we have an opportunity today to stem the tide of this judicial activism and to restore the ability of the American people to establish policies that affect them and their lives through their elected Representatives. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, please support this rule, and upon the conclusion of general debate, I ask my colleagues to affirm legal and historical precedent and defend our traditions about supporting the underlying amendment to restore the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. 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, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 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, House Resolution 918 is a closed rule. It provides 1 hour and 30 minutes of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution, it provides one motion to recommit, and it provides that during consideration of the joint resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the joint resolution to a time designated by the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 918 and the underlying joint resolution, H.J. Res. 88, the Marriage Protection Act. First, I would like to thank Representative Marilyn Musgrave, the author and lead sponsor of this constitutional amendment, for her steadfast commitment to the preservation of traditional marriage. As the manager of this rule and an original cosponsor of the underlying joint resolution, I am very pleased the House will have an opportunity today to consider and debate this very important amendment to our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, the proceeding debate, both on the rule and the underlying resolution, either can be divisive and disrespectful, or it can be respectful and productive. This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with exclusion, but it has everything to do with protecting the traditional and historical definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Contrary to what the opponents of this resolution might say today, this amendment will simply preserve the traditional definition of marriage as it has existed for millennia. I anticipate there will be those on the other side who will say this amendment was concocted for political purposes. To the contrary, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is in response to a few activist judges who are trying to throw out the definition of marriage, along with over 200 years of American judicial precedent. These judges, and these judges alone, made this matter an issue, and they did so without one vote cast in either a legislature or at the ballot box. These activist judges substituted legal precedent and the will of the American people with their own personal desires and political beliefs. Their decision to scrap the traditional definition of marriage has forced us, forced us, to now consider enshrining the definition of marriage into our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I would prefer to not have to address this issue in this manner. But, unfortunately, I know my constituents and a strong majority of the American people want us to defend the traditional definition of marriage. A poll by the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of right-wing conservatism, they found that 59 percent, I repeat, 59 percent, of Americans favor an amendment to the Constitution stating that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. I also, sadly, realize this amendment will probably not have the necessary two-thirds majority to pass and opponents will cite this as a reason to not even consider the underlying resolution. We heard it in a couple of the 1-minute speeches from the other side just a few moments ago. Well, this vote will serve as an opportunity for each and every Member of this body to go on record in support or in opposition to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. And after this vote each of us will be judged accordingly by our constituents, and I can say with a clear conscience and without hesitation that I will support this rule, I will support the underlying resolution for the sake of the sacred institution of traditional marriage and for the sake of our precious children. Mr. Speaker, I also want to encourage my colleagues to support the rule and this underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to a couple of things that my good friend said, Mr. Speaker, nowadays lots of people are claiming that marriage is a discriminatory institution. Same-sex couples say marriage discriminates against them. Believe it or not, single people are now complaining that marriage discriminates also against them. After all, say the singles, why should the State give special benefits to married parents but not to us? It gets worse. Even polygamists and believers in group marriage, who call themselves polyamorists, are saying that marriage discriminates against them. Now, if the support society gives the men and women who have the potential to create children is going to be called discrimination, pretty soon there is not going to be such a thing as a marriage at all. When one group can call marriage discrimination, then any group can make the same claim. And, also, Mr. Speaker, there was a comment about a couple loving each other. But this is not a civil rights issue. Love, of course, is a great thing. But in my humble opinion, marriage is not just any kind of love. It is a love that can bear children, and it is a love that involves both a mom and a dad. Two men might be a good father. But neither one is a mom. The ideal for children is the love of both a mom and a dad. No same-sex couple can provide that. The ideal for marriage is about bringing together moms and dads so children have a mother and a father to learn from. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Representative Virginia Foxx.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. The gentleman from Ohio is concerned and says, what next? Is the Congress going to take out from the Pledge of Allegiance ``with liberty and justice for all''? I say to my friend from Ohio, no. Later on this week we will have the opportunity to defend ``one Nation under God'' and keep the Federal judiciary from taking that out. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. The gentleman from Massachusetts I am sure is aware of the fact that in his State, opponents have gathered 170,000 signatures supporting a constitutional amendment they hope would end gay marriage, despite what their supreme court did. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin that 45 States currently define marriage as a union of one man and one woman or expressly prohibit same-sex marriages; and those 45 States we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, include 88 percent of the population of this country. We are not just talking about Georgia. The fact is in a constitutional amendment, three-fourths of the States will have to ratify it.

Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is because of these activist judges who are chipping away at the will of the people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the gentleman from Virginia that it is not all about money and how we spend it that we are in this Congress, but it is also about values and how this great country represents them to the world, not the least of which is the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I could debate theology with the gentleman from Missouri, as an ordained minister, but I do know a little bit about the sacrament of marriage, Mr. Speaker, as one of about 200 Catholic Members of the United States Congress. I think God has spoken very clearly, very clearly on this issue. And I would refer the gentleman to Holy Scripture, and what the word says in regard to marriage and the sanctity of marriage. I think it is pretty clear. The gentleman wants to talk about the fact that this should be a church issue. I agree with you. I wish it were, if it were not for these activist Federal judges and these public officials. I will remind the gentleman from Missouri, the good Reverend, that they will be the one that would be performing these marriages and they would do it to a fare-thee-well. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).