Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GINGREY. 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 907 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, this House resolution is a structured rule, House Resolution 907, and it provides 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on Financial Services and the Judiciary now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute, depicted in the Rules Committee Print dated July 5, 2006, shall be considered as adopted. This resolution makes in order the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution, if offered by Representative Berkley of Nevada or her designee, which shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. This resolution waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 907 and the underlying bill, H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. First, I want to recognize and thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Oxley for shepherding this bill through their committees to the floor for consideration. And, additionally, I would like to also recognize Representatives Leach and Goodlatte, the coauthors of H.R. 4411, for all of their hard work to ensure that laws are updated to the year 2006 and that we crack down on those who would circumvent existing law. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4411 would amend existing statutes to prohibit individuals and companies in the gambling industry from knowingly accepting credit card, check, electronic fund transfers, and other similar means or the proceeds of any other financial transaction in connection with unlawful Internet gambling. Further, this bill would direct the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to develop and prescribe regulations which are necessary and proper to identify and prevent the previously mentioned types of transactions. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, this bill aims to modernize existing law as established by the Wire Act of 1961 to both address the changing technological landscape and clarify the currently vague statutory definition of ``bets and wagers.'' This clarification is needed in order to close the ``blackjack'' loophole that allows games like poker, blackjack, and roulette to slip through the cracks of existing law. Additionally, this bill would increase from 2 years to 5 years the penalty for violating the Wire Act as well as this underlying bill. This bill also reaffirms our commitment to federalism by protecting the rights of the States to regulate Internet gambling within their respective borders. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4411 is a good bill that makes sure the letter of the law catches up with the spirit of the law, given the emergence of new technologies and the proliferation of underground and overseas gambling organizations that attempt to skirt the rule of law and exploit individuals. So as we move forward with this debate, I want to encourage my colleagues to support the rule and support this underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Virginia and coauthor of this bill, Mr. Goodlatte. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. It is interesting to hear from the other side the complaint about ending our workday at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the afternoon, whatever the case may be, and yet we hear from them repeatedly of the accusation that the Republicans are passing bills in the dark of the night. So no matter how we do it, they are going to criticize us. I think the schedule that we keep is the one that gets things done and gets it done in an effective way. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

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 Mr. King very much for controlling the time in this hour. I thank him for yielding, and certainly Mr. Miller and Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Goode and others that have spoken during this hour. Those are the eloquent voices on this issue. They are not crazy voices. They are voices that are basically saying, you know, we got laws in this country and we need to enforce them. We need to secure our borders first and foremost before we consider any other options in regard to things like a temporary worker program or what to do with the estimated 12 million people here that have been in this country for various and sundry periods of time illegally, most of them working, yes. There is no way in the world you can determine really how long they are here because of fraudulent documents. But the ideas that have been proffered, like the idea that my friend from Iowa has suggested in regard to this, because I do not know if we need a fence, Mr. Speaker, for 2,000 miles all of the way from Brownsville to San Diego, but we definitely need some fencing. There is no question about it. There are certain areas of our southern border that you cannot control without the type of fencing that Mr. King has described. And we need to do that. In fact, in this body, in this House of Representatives, in our bill that we passed, actually we passed two bills over the last couple of years, the first one being the REAL ID Act, which is exactly what the 9/11 Commission has asked for, that bipartisan commission in unanimous fashion, we responded to exactly what they were asking us to do in the REAL ID Act. Then we followed up with the Border Security Act toward the end of 2005, calling, Mr. Speaker, for 750 miles of fencing, not 2,000, but 750. What does the Senate do? They come along with a bill that calls for about maybe 300 miles of fencing, at the very most 370 miles. My friend, Mr. King, who has been such a strong advocate on this issue of border security knows that that is totally, totally inadequate, particularly if you are talking about the dense population centers below our border States. I know in the REAL ID Act, we finally completed 14 miles of fencing at the San Diego border that the environmentalists had blocked for years because of some endangered shrub the hordes of illegals that were crossing trample those shrubs down pretty effectively, taking care of any concerns that the environmentalists may have had. But listen to some of the things that are in the bill on the Senate side compared to what we have passed on the House side. They would allow guest workers, so-called guest workers to be paid the prevailing wage. That is the Obama amendment, when American citizens do not have to be paid prevailing wage. They expand the visa waiver program to countries in the European Union in good standing with the United States and allow the State Department discretion for adding new member countries. Mr. Speaker, we need to suspend the visa waiver program. We absolutely, after 9/11, this idea of saying that people can come into this country with a passport, no visa, and stay for 90 days, no way of knowing exactly who they are, just a routine stamp of a passport, and then they may or may not go home after that vacation or that summer that they spend in one of our colleges or universities, and we do not know where they are. We need, and we called for this in the PATRIOT Act, we called for this in the 9/11 Act, that we knew, we could verify entry and exit. Until we can do that, the idea of expanding, Mr. Speaker, the visa waiver program is ridiculous. The bottom line is this. I think the House has got it right. I think the Senate has it wrong. We need to secure our borders first and foremost. And no amnesty. I yield back. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. And I just want to say, as my good friend and our colleague Coach Osborne said at the outset, Roscoe Bartlett deserves a lot of credit for this bill, H.R. 5526. And it has not been easy. You heard him say, Mr. Speaker, that he has been working on this issue for over 5 years, has met with the Bioethics Commission, the President's Bioethics Commission, to discuss this issue, discuss this issue with the White House, understanding, as he said just a few moments ago, that while we want to search for that miraculous medical breakthrough, that cure, that hopefully we can obtain either from adult or umbilical cord blood stem cells or the even greater potential for utilizing embryonic stem cells to save human life, to save the people that he was just talking about, Mr. Speaker. And, indeed, I am sure you know this as well as the other Members that these folks do come by and talk to us on an annual basis, whether they are juvenile diabetics or Parkinson's, as he described, Alzheimer's. I think often of children born with something called spina bifida, where there is an open defect in the spine. One of these germ cell layers that Roscoe was just talking about, the ectoderm, something goes awry in the developmental process, in the fetal stage of development, and these children are born perfectly normal in every way except for this defect, which in almost every instance leaves them with a permanent, noncurable paralysis usually from the waist down. That not only affects their lower extremities, but of course, it affects the function of bowel and bladder in these otherwise perfect, perfect children, and yet their lifespan is drastically shortened because of the complication of this birth defect. I have lain awake more than one night thinking about what might be done, whether it is a surgical technique or a medication. Obviously, it would be great if these birth defects never occurred, if we knew exactly what caused that birth defect, but we do not. We just do not, and so to be able to develop something, some way of helping these children and people with other diseases that the gentleman from Maryland has just described is a passion of mine as a physician. To come to this Congress, as I did 3\1/2\ years ago in the 108th, and to meet other Members of this body on both sides of the aisle, but in particular Representative Bartlett, and understand that he has a knowledge of this subject far beyond probably any physician Member, Roscoe Bartlett of course is a doctor. He is a Ph.D. He has taught embryology in medical school. Physiology, he is a physiologist, and the subject matter of which he is describing and talking about this evening, he has done so over the last several years, and it is amazing how he can put that, Mr. Speaker, in a simplistic terminology, with charts but with a very lucid explanation so that we, other Members on both sides of the aisle in both chambers, can understand and the general public who hopefully are watching can understand because the sound byte becomes reality. This issue revolves around the use of embryonic stem cells, embryonic stem cells to hopefully result in these medical cures, these miracles that we hope will be there in our lifetime. Mr. Speaker, we have a President that feels very strongly about that, that has great passion and compassion. But what he has said, and I heard him loud and clear shortly before I became a Member of this august body, when he made a decision not to destroy human life for the sake of hopefully some miraculous medical cure. You could almost compare it to what our military commanders do and the decisions that they make. I know that the Speaker tonight particularly understands that with his military service and that of his sons serving in the military, but you try as hard as you can to avoid collateral damage in the military. The last thing you want to do in going after the enemy and taking him out is to inadvertently destroy or injure the life of a civilian. Well, this is getting right down to the core of this matter of what Representative Bartlett is so concerned about. We want to be able to improve human life and relieve the suffering of our fellow brothers and sisters, but at the same time, we do not want to destroy a life in the process. That destruction of life, whether it is a little embryo from one of these infertility clinics or, indeed, whether at some point somebody extends that destruction of human life to a senior citizen at the other extreme who may have lost most of their, not all of their, but most of their mental capacity, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that if we knew that we could obtain a cell from the brain of a senior citizen who is suffering from senility and use that as a stem cell to cure somebody else's disease but in the process kill that individual, no one would accept that, I would hope, I would think, I would pray, and I think not. So this is really what this is all about. Roscoe Bartlett knows and has finally convinced his colleagues, I think certainly in this body, but also in the other body, that there is a better way, that there is indeed a better way and that we can obtain these pluripotential stem cells, not totipotential because I know some would say if it is a totipotential, that it is an embryo in and of itself. But this bill has the precept of saying we can fund research that will allow the harvesting of stem cells without destroying human life, and anybody that suggests that the embryos that are so-called left over from the fertility clinics are throwaway embryos, are going to be flushed down the drain anyway and it is okay to churn them up and centrifuge out some stem cells and destroy that human life, that it does not matter, needs to talk to the parents of the snowflake babies, some of them 3 and 4 years old now, I think close to 100, who have been adopted from those parents that own those embryos, those so-called excess throwaway embryos. So there is a better way, and we do not need to get into this debate about who is pro-life and who is pro-choice and all of that. If we can do this in the Bartlett way, H.R. 5526 is the way to do it, and it is a companion bill to what Senator Santorum has introduced in the Senate. I am just thrilled to learn that Dr. Frist will allow that bill, as well as the Castle-DeGette bill and the Brownback bill to be brought to the floor of the Senate, it is my understanding next week, voted on. Possibly all three of those bills, Mr. Speaker, will pass, and then the President will have an opportunity, after we pass the companion bill to H.R. 5526, to do the right thing. Then I think the Members of this body will sustain if the President vetoes the Castle-DeGette bill, which, again, I am not criticizing the authors, but there is no question that it goes back and allows taxpayer dollars, mine, my constituents in the 11th of Georgia, Roscoe Bartlett's constituents, with their hard-earned money to pay for research that results in the destruction of human life, and we reject that. So I am thrilled that the 4 years of hard work that Representative Bartlett has put into this issue is finally going to come to fruition and we are going to get good results from utilizing these stem cells that are obtained. I know that he will begin in just a moment, as I conclude, to talk about the different techniques of how that can be done, and I think our colleagues can understand it because he explains it well. It is not rocket science. It is not something that is star wars, but it is real and it is the way to do it. So I am real happy to be here tonight to once again join my colleague who I have such great affection for, not just him personally but the issue that he has taken on and the hurdles that he has had to go through, and I commend him for that.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman. Indeed, it is true, Mr. Speaker, what he is describing. In fact, I can relate some personal experience to that. I think a lot of my colleagues know my wife and I had our fifth grandchild, but our oldest grandchildren are identical twin girls; they are 8 years old, and they were actually born at 26 weeks. They only weighed one pound, 12 ounces. And, Mr. Speaker, normally that situation is fraught with a lot of problems, and we were, of course, very blessed that they did well. But what Representative Bartlett is talking about is exactly right. And, as he said, in human nature, you get this division, and you may be dividing at the eight-cell stage, you may be dividing at the four-cell stage or the 16-cell stage, and no harm is done. You are basically taking away 50 percent; it is almost like the wisdom of Solomon in dividing a child without harming either. And it is amazing what human nature can do. And the gentleman said earlier that preimplantation diagnoses biopsy of the embryos so that you can avoid reimplanting an embryo that has a genetic defect that is incompatible with life. And these processes are being done, the gentleman referred to maybe a couple hundred cases that he was familiar with, with absolutely no harm. So this is exactly the right track, and so I do agree with your statement.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the important progress being made in Iraq. Let me remind my colleagues and the American people of the incredible accomplishments United States troops and the Iraqi people have achieved over the last 4 years. Saddam Hussein is behind bars, and al Qaeda's top leaders have been eliminated. Iraqi security forces currently participate in more than 90 percent of all security operations, and the Iraqi people are increasingly coming forth with actionable intelligence about terrorist activity. But, Mr. Speaker, the progress in Iraq cannot be measured solely on our military success. The Iraqi people can now watch commercial television. They can read independent newspapers. Women are part of the political process. In fact, women secured 31 percent of the seats in the Iraqi National Assembly. Primary school enrollment has increased by nearly 3 million children, and Iraqi medical schools now graduate more than 2,000 doctors a year. So, Mr. Speaker, as we congratulate the Iraqi people on these successes, let's not forget to thank our troops for the important work they are doing in Iraq, training soldiers, building schools, working every day for security and freedom in the Middle East.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the President for his recent executive order limiting the eminent domain powers of the Federal Government. This order is a significant step in the right direction. This executive order comes 1 year after the Supreme Court's narrowly decided Kelo decision which essentially gutted the private property protection of the fifth amendment. Thankfully, across the country, State and local governments have begun to pass legislation rolling back the tide of eminent domain abuse. In my home State of Georgia, the legislature recently passed and Governor Perdue signed significant eminent domain reform legislation to protect the rights of Georgia's citizens from the government wrecking ball. However, we in this Congress must do more; and, therefore, I call upon the Senate to take up and pass H.R. 4128, the Private Property Protection Act of 2005, which this House passed last November by a bipartisan and overwhelming vote. With the 4th of July approaching, let's declare that this land is the American people's land and not the government's.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be instructive for all of our colleagues to let me read briefly the synopsis of this resolution: Supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation, as we heard from Chairman Hoekstra a minute ago, and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method by which terrorists are traced through their finances. Mr. Speaker, we heard a little while ago from the gentleman, the very intelligent gentleman from Massachusetts, that resolved number 2 he had some concerns about. Resolved number 2 basically says, finds that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with all applicable law, regulations and executive orders, that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individuals' civil liberties. He is concerned about that. I grant him that concern. I am not concerned about it. I am sure if he votes against this rule or against the resolution, he can explain this to the people of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I can explain also my support to the people in the 11th District of Georgia because, mainly, of resolved number 4, and this is it. It expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs leaked to them, such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. I don't care who it is, Mr. Chairman, of what political party or who they work for. If they are leaking information and putting our men and women who are doing the fighting and dying for us, putting their lives in danger, then we need to out them and prosecute them. The media, and we are not naming names with regard to whether it is The Washington Post or New York Times, needs to show some responsibility. Support the rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a brave and giving man from my district, Dr. John Burson. Dr. Burson is the CEO of Chattahoochee Healthcare in Carrollton, Georgia; and he was recently honored with a Healthcare Hero award for his selfless efforts on behalf of injured civilians in Iraq. As a physician myself, I know many doctors but few with the tenacity of Dr. Burson. At age 71, he packed his bag for Baghdad, where he worked all during the day at the United States Embassy clinic and by night at the Combat Support Hospital treating injured Iraqi citizens. He even treated ABC news anchor Bob Woodward after he was injured by a roadside bomb. Dr. Burson is a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the United States Army Reserves, where he spent 30 years serving our country. Thankfully, his retirement from the Reserves has not ended his commitment to service. In fact, Dr. Burson traveled to Iraq last November so he could relieve younger military doctors who wanted to spend the Christmas holidays with their families. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Burson has used his skill and passion to improve the lives of patients from Georgia and Iraq; and I ask you to join me in saluting this brave American.

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for my colleague from Illinois; and I know his passion for the Baltic countries and particularly Lithuania. And this is not about them. This is not about any specific country, although there are two that are in line to expand this Visa Waiver Program from the current 27 to 29. It is not the Baltic countries. But we are in a situation where we have got to accept the reality of the risk that we are in. If I really had my way, I would like to see the Visa Waiver Program completely suspended, all 27 countries suspended. In fact, I have introduced a bill to that effect and brought that amendment to the 9/11 bill. And I had a colloquy then, withdrew that amendment with the agreement that hearings would be held and this issue would be addressed. The 9/11 bill in 2004, the PATRIOT Act called for making sure this entry-exit system and the biometrics on the passports were secure by a date certain. We are beyond that date certain, Mr. Chairman. And now, from these countries, no, they weren't coalitions of the willing, but France certainly has been our friend and for the sake of tourism, but we can't afford to continue to do that in this time. I urge my colleagues, I beg my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield back.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I believe our Nation needs to secure its points of entry and we need to do it now. Specifically, I believe we should prevent any additional countries from joining the United States Visa Waiver Program until we have the technical and human resources to secure our points of entry. And that is my amendment. I do not believe our Nation can afford the security risk of allowing more visitors to the United States without screening them prior to arrival. This amendment would prevent funds from being used to negotiate additional visa waiver countries. Mr. Chairman, the State Department would not be using funds to negotiate new visa waivers until the machine-readable and tamper- resistant biometric identification standards on passports that were mandated by the PATRIOT Act and the 9/11 Act in 2004 as the cornerstone of this entry-exit system are fully operational. There are currently 27 visa waiver countries, and I believe it is simply too risky to negotiate additional countries without first having our security screening system in place. Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow additional visa waiver countries which could provide more opportunities for terrorists to breach a loophole in our security. How long will it be before Immigration Customs Enforcement, ICE, the Air Marshals, or TSA, Transportation Security Administration, misses the next Richard Reid? Mr. Chairman, I understand concerns about how spending or limiting the Visa Waiver Program may adversely affect cultural exchange or possibly hurt the airline and tourist industry. However, at what point are we willing to risk security for new pen pals and business as usual? Habib Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent and a name we all know very well, used his French passport without a U.S. visa on February 23, 2001, to fly from London to Chicago and on to Oklahoma City where he began flight training at an aviation school. On August 16, 2001, the INS arrested Moussaoui because he remained in the United States well beyond the 90 days allowed for the Visa Waiver Program entrants and was in violation of the requirement that Visa Waiver Program travelers enter for business or tourism. Had INS and law enforcement not been on top of their game, Moussaoui could have been a part of the 9/11 attacks, thanks to a visa waiver. In fact, we have referred to him as the twentieth hijacker. So, Mr. Chairman, the Visa Waiver Program was only designed to be a temporary program for a small and a select group of nations, starting with the UK, Japan and France in 1986. Today, 27 countries are eligible under visa waivers, opening the door widely for unscreened terrorists to attack the United States. Twenty-seven countries are enough to keep ICE and TSA exceedingly busy. Do we really need to fund efforts to add a 28th and 29th country to their list of responsibilities? I just don't want to see our Nation attacked because we couldn't carry through with our commitments to security first. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, please support this Gingrey amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in regard to minimum wage increases and the hope, the fact is that as minimum wage increases, hope for job seekers decrease. A Duke University economist found recently that for every 10 percent increase in mandated wages, the probability of job seekers finding a job decreased by nearly 3 percent, according to the Employment Policies Institute. Other top researchers found similar results. This one, a Boston University study, noted that low-skilled adults in States that raise their minimum wage are often crowded out of the job market by teens and students. Research from Michigan State University echoed this conclusion, finding that high-skilled teens are those who are perceived as desirable employees often displace low-skilled employees in a minimum wage job after a mandated wage hike. Madam Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of the importance of this underlying bill. H.R. 5672 funds the critical operations of our government from the diplomatic affairs of the State Department to the law enforcement activities of the Justice Department. Additionally, it provides funds for the various watchdog agencies that ensure a free and fair economic playing field for businesses and consumers alike. This bill has substantial funding for sciences, to make sure that America stays on the forefront of medical and technological innovation as we continue to reach for the stars, both literally and figuratively. While some critics may call for more funding of this program or that program, they not only fail to realize the limited funds available in this Federal budget but also fail to fully appreciate the hard work of the subcommittee in balancing our funding needs with the need to respect the taxpayer dollar. Madam Speaker, while this bill may not be perfect, no bill is, it is a good bill that sets priorities and it sets a solid vision for the future on multiple fronts. So, in conclusion, I again want to thank subcommittee Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Mollohan, full committee Chairman Lewis and for all of the hard work and the time that went into this bill before us today. I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 890 is an open rule, and it provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. This resolution waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution. It authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. This resolution provides that it shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment of the House and Senate during the month of July and provides also that H. Res. 878 is laid on the table. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 890 and the underlying appropriations bill. H.R. 5672 will fund many of the priorities of this Nation, combating terrorism and crime, strengthening our economy, fostering diplomatic relations and, finally, advancing scientific growth and innovation throughout this country. Each of these priorities is essential to ensure a stronger and a more secure America, and this bill increases funding over last year for almost each and every one of these priorities. I should also add, to the credit of the committee, under the leadership of Chairman Wolf, that this bill also contains almost $200 million in savings for our taxpayers. I want to thank Chairman Wolf for his stewardship of this bill. Madam Speaker, H.R. 5672 provides $22.1 billion for the Department of Justice. That is almost $724 million above last year, and it is $1 billion above the President's request. This $22 billion includes $6 billion for the FBI, as they develop and execute better ways to combat terrorism and fight various forms of crime, from child exploitation to gang violence. This increased funding means improved information technology, better counterintelligence capabilities, and a greater number of highly trained human assets on the ground. Additionally, because State and local law enforcement play a fundamental and a critical role in fighting crime, this bill includes $2.6 billion for their efforts. And that is an increase of $1.1 billion over the President's request. H.R. 5672 also includes $558 million for the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants program. That is $147 million over last year, fiscal year 2006. And to fight this scourge of methamphetamines which sadly pervades so many of our communities, including those of my own, Georgia's 11th, this bill provides $1.75 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA. Unquestionably, this bill demonstrates the commitment of this Congress, working with the President, to continually reassess and strengthen our security and our law enforcement priorities, ensuring that threats at home and abroad are identified and neutralized. Madam Speaker, H.R. 5672 also provides $22.7 billion to fund our Nation's scientific priorities, with $16.7 billion for NASA as well as $6 billion for the National Science Foundation. Having practiced as an OB-GYN for almost 30 years, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of encouraging scientific advancement in saving lives and improving our quality of life. Scientific innovation also captivates the minds of our children and other generations to come as they dream to develop technologies that will change the world of tomorrow. Madam Speaker, this bill also includes funding to further improve the world of today by providing $9.7 billion for the State Department. Of that, $1.7 billion goes to secure and replace our vulnerable embassies throughout the world. H.R. 5672 includes $5.95 billion for the Department of Commerce, $900 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission, $294 million for the Federal Communications Commission, and $213 million for the Federal Trade Commission. Madam Speaker, these dollars are essential to not only building a stronger economy but also ensuring a fair and a level playing field for everyone who participates in this economy. Madam Speaker, last but not least, this bill also includes $643 million for the SBA, the Small Business Administration, which will support business loans to help entrepreneurs across our great Nation access critical start-up capital for new businesses. Without question, our economy is driven by small businesses and the entrepreneurs who are willing to take a chance and turn a dream into a reality. In conclusion, this bill also makes provisions for three very important programs in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia. I want to mention these because they are so important. The Inner Harbor EXCEL Program in Rockmart, Georgia, in Polk County, provides quality services for at-risk youth and offers a viable alternative to incarceration. It funds the Douglas County Zero to Three Program which helps the county's juvenile courts to better address the needs of neglected and maltreated infants and toddlers. And, lastly, the National Association of Court Management, which aims to improve our courts and develop related educational programs. I want to again thank Chairman Wolf for his support of these programs which are so very important to the people of northwest Georgia. Madam Speaker, as we move forward with this debate, I want to encourage my colleagues to please support this rule and support the underlying bill as we stand together in support of funding our Nation's priorities. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 890 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman is talking about how he would pay for his amendment that would cost $600 million. Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we point out that they always say how much of a tax break people making more than a million dollars, and they talk about a $114,000 tax break, and we are going to cut that down to $112,000, but they never say, the gentleman from West Virginia certainly did not say, how much these people with an adjusted gross income of over $1 million are actually paying in taxes every year. It is a huge number, and they do not want to share that with the fellow Members. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, at this time I have no additional requests for time, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in response to some of the comments the gentlewoman from Connecticut was making, and the gentleman from Wisconsin earlier said in his remarks that they wanted an opportunity, and was taking an opportunity on this bill, to discuss the minimum wage issue even though it was not the appropriate format, and I agree with that, I think that the discussion of this issue certainly would be more appropriate for the next appropriations bill that we will be considering, Labor-HHS. Or maybe it will come up even as a stand-alone measure. I do not know. But it just seems to me that on this appropriation bill, Science, State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations Act, that this is not the right format to bring up the issue. I do not question the gentleman's right or any of the Members on the other side of the aisle who have spoken during this rule time about the minimum wage issue. But this is not something that this is the last opportunity to get this done. I want to say, Madam Speaker, too, in regard to this issue, listen to this, minimum wage hikes pit low-skilled adults against teenagers from higher income families. This was an article in a newspaper May 13, 2004. Employers react to minimum wage hikes by replacing low-skilled adults with teenagers from high-income families who are drawn into the job market by better pay. Decades of research confirmed what President Roosevelt's Department of Labor found just 1 year after the minimum wage made its debut in 1938. In a number of instances there have been reports that workers who have been receiving less than the minimum wage have been laid off and replaced by more efficient workers. Minimum wage hikes can destroy jobs and destroy them permanently. When jobs are destroyed by minimum wage hikes, those jobs often never come back. Again, this is a newspaper article from May 13, 2004. Following minimum wage increases, employers often replace less skilled employees with machines or simply reduce the level of service to customers. Businesses automate their telephone reception. Fast food diners bus their own tables. Gas stations go self-service. Shoppers scan and bag their own groceries. The point I am making, Madam Speaker, is that you have to be, and I know the gentleman from Wisconsin certainly understands these issues as well as anybody, but the concern is that you do not want to destroy jobs by raising the minimum wage to a level, that this in fact happens, as I quoted from some of these articles in past statistics. I do not think that this side of the aisle is opposed to looking at this issue, and, again, whether it is on the Labor-HHS bill or whether it is on a stand-alone situation, but I do not think this is the appropriate time to have this debate. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make sure that the gentleman from Wisconsin knows that this Member voted against giving himself a COLA and has consistently done that in the two terms that I have served.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, as we head into the 4th of July holiday, millions of Americans will feel the pinch of high gasoline prices as they travel to see family and friends. We are watching gas prices climb higher and higher, and it has become readily apparent that America is too dependent on foreign crude oil. Earlier this year, the House passed legislation to allow drilling in a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge of this frozen tundra of Alaska's north slope. Despite the fact that oil from ANWR could supply my State of Georgia's energy needs for 54 years and that drilling would be conducted under the strictest environmental standards, many Democrats still oppose this legislation. This week, we have another chance to support domestic energy production when we vote on legislation to use America's massive energy resources in the deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf. The bipartisan legislation is one way we can start weaning America off our foreign oil dependency. Madam Speaker, the American people are tired of paying high prices at the pump. They demand action, and this Republican majority is delivering. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting the development of domestic energy sources.