Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my physician colleague from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I will close this debate by again thanking Chairmen Sensenbrenner and King for their work on this important conference report. This bill is a testament to our open legislative process. Conservatives, liberals, moderates, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, the ACLU, the Department of Justice and various other organizations have all had the opportunity to voice their thoughts and concerns on the underlying bill. I believe, Madam Speaker, the final product is solid and legal, does not violate our constitutional rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment, and will serve as an important framework to fight terrorism, protect civil liberties and thereby further strengthen America. Again, I want to encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support both the rule and the underlying bill. Madam 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, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I want to remind the gentleman from Texas that this latest 9/11 Commission so-called report card gave us an F for failing to reveal the amount of intelligence spending to the terrorists. So if that is the kind of report card he is talking about, then I am proud of that F. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman that in the original bill that we considered, H.R. 3199, which 43 of his colleagues supported, there were sunset provisions not in two, but in three, sections that were of 10 years' duration. In their motion to instruct the conferees, the request was to abide by the Senate bill, which would lower those to 4 years each. So that is exactly what we are bringing back in the conference report, exactly what they asked for. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In regard to section 215, I want to remind the gentleman that section 215, relating to investigators' access to business records, this reauthorization requires a statement of fact showing reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or espionage. This provides additional safeguards to the original USA PATRIOT Act, which requires the government only to certify that the records at issue were sought for an authorized investigation without any factual showing. Mr. Speaker, I could continue with that, but I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a member of the Judiciary and Transportation Committees.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 595 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, House Resolution 595 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. I rise today in support of House Resolution 595 and the underlying conference report for H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank Chairmen Sensenbrenner and King for all of their work in shepherding H.R. 3199 initially in the committee and then on the floor and now through the conference. This conference report demonstrates this Congress's commitment to find common ground in order to move solid and important legislation for the good and safety of the American people. This conference report is the culmination of 4 years of thorough hearings, extensive oversight, representing a collaborative effort to strengthen and fine tune our law enforcement needs and civil security needs as originally provided by the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act. Like most Americans, I fully cherish and celebrate our constitutionally protected civil liberties, while also recognizing the need for strengthened national security with thorough and proper oversight. And this Congress has demonstrated and will continue to demonstrate a clear commitment to oversight in order to better achieve the essential and proper balance between necessary protective measures and our sacred civil liberties granted to us by the United States Constitution. As I mentioned, when the House first considered this legislation back in July, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3199, like most legislation considered before this House, is not perfect. In an ideal world, it would not be necessary, but today's world is sadly far from ideal. Today, America faces a grave threat from enemies who cowardly operate in the darkness of shadows, waiting with the intent to kill innocent people in the name of their hateful ideology. Therefore, we must never again be caught with our guard down. This Congress must act and must act decisively and deliberately to provide our law enforcement with the tools they need to protect and to save American lives, both here and abroad. With respect to the provisions of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, this conference report will make permanent many vital law enforcement tools made available for use against suspected terrorists by the USA PATRIOT Act while establishing 4-year sunsets on a few provisions such as section 206, FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, multi-point wire taps, section 215, FISA business record provisions and finally, the Lone Wolf provision. With respect to section 206, it is important to recognize that the ability to track terrorists through the use of multi point or roving wire taps is essential because it allows law enforcement to follow a terrorist, rather than a telephone. Mr. Speaker, terrorists are not reliant on two Dixie cups and a piece of string to coordinate and plot terrorist attacks. They have access to a universal and a vast array of communication technologies, and our laws must take this fact into account. Additionally, this conference report, through section 215, ensures that law enforcement will still have the ability, under thorough and extensive oversight, let me repeat, under thorough and extensive oversight, to seek out information on terrorists without tipping them off and thereby potentially compromising security and costing lives. Again, Mr. Speaker, it should be emphasized to all Americans that the USA PATRIOT Act did not establish any new law enforcement capabilities but rather extended techniques long available for use against organized crime or drug trafficking to be used against suspected terrorists as well. If these are acceptable tools against some dope-pushing thug, then they should be acceptable tools against terrorists who seek to destroy American lives and rip apart the very fabric of this great Nation. Without question, this Congress must, and I trust, will continue to remain vigilant with thorough oversight to protect our Constitution, to protect our civil liberties and to protect our national security. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying conference report, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues that prior to 9/11 and before the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, we had this culture and legal problem where law enforcement could not communicate whatsoever with intelligence. This bill enabled us to finally, finally connect the dots. I think this is very important for all of us to keep in mind. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the Appropriations Committee. (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield to myself 15 seconds and want to remind the gentlewoman from California that under this reauthorization, the USA PATRIOT Act, we are not utilizing powers that were not already granted to the Federal Government in regard to crime prevention and drug lords and organized crime. We are just applying it now to terrorists. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. I have no more speakers.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stress America's need for border security reform. We should be supporting those who enforce our laws, not rewarding those who break them. I believe our border security problem can be managed and controlled, but to do so, we need the vital assistance of our local and State governments. Local law enforcement personnel see the repercussions of illegal immigration every day, but unfortunately, they do not have the clear authority to handle this problem, nor do they have the infrastructure and financial resources to turn illegal immigrants over to Federal authorities. This has to change. The House version of our border security plan cannot be complete without language to help local authorities enforce our laws. My friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has introduced the CLEAR Act, and I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation. As we debate immigration reform, we must remember that illegal immigration is both a national and a local problem, and our solutions must assist law enforcement at all levels.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague on the Rules Committee for allowing me this opportunity to speak on behalf of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4297, the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act. Today, each and every Member of this House is taking a test before the American people. This test has one question, and simply enough, it is even multiple choice. The question is: Who do you trust more to spend your hard-earned money? Is it, A, the Federal Government and its bloated bureaucracy; or is it, B, the American people? Well, Mr. Speaker, the correct answer, obviously, is, B, the American people. However, those who vote against this rule and vote against this tax relief bill are choosing to trust the Federal Government and its bloated bureaucracy over the people who pay the taxes and are the engine of a job-creating economy. Now, Mr. Speaker, the opponents of this tax relief will try to obscure and confuse this debate by mischaracterizing this House's previous vote on budget reform and reduction with claims of, and I have already heard it, robbing the poor to pay the rich. Well, Mr. Speaker, these claims are simply untrue. In fact, today's reconciliation package includes extensions of tax incentives that provide work for many low-income Americans, such as the Welfare to Work Tax Credit and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit that encourages businesses to hire and pay people and families on public assistance, high-risk youths, qualified veterans, and people who receive food stamps. So a vote against this tax relief package is tantamount to a vote for an economy under which it is acceptable and even preferred to give the poorest individuals only one option, government dependency, a dependency that empowers bureaucrats and politicians over people and places political power before economic liberty and opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add that since this tax relief package includes mostly extensions of current tax cuts and credits, a vote against this bill is a vote simply to raise taxes. No ifs, ands, or buts, those who vote against this bill are voting in front of the American people to raise taxes. The opponents of this bill would raise taxes on middle-income Americans, rich Americans, poor Americans, investors, savers, entrepreneurs, small business owners, universities, veterans, and even people who are trying to clean up the environment. All of these people will receive a tax increase if this bill is not passed and signed into law. So, Mr. Speaker, each and every Member of this House has an opportunity today to go on record and tell the American people where they stand on raising taxes and whether they trust the American people with their own money. In conclusion, I would like to encourage my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying tax relief extension package for the sake of economic growth and for the sake of the American taxpayer.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, as the Congress begins to finalize this year's legislative agenda and draw this session to a close, I am very pleased to see this House continue to do the people's work right up to the end. I am especially pleased this House will soon vote to allow the American people to keep their money and not raise taxes. Clearly, the opponents of maintaining the tax status quo do not trust the taxpayers with their own money. Mr. Speaker, let us review some statistics. The economy grew by 4.3 percent in the previous quarter, the 10th consecutive quarter in which the economy grew by more than 3 percent. Consumer confidence rose by 14 percent in the previous 3 months, and we have a 5 percent unemployment rate which is lower than the average unemployment rate for the past three decades. And to top it off, since May of 2003, 4.4 million jobs have been created. Mr. Speaker, the results are in, and the American taxpayer has passed with flying colors. So let us keep this growth growing. Let us show that we trust the true engine of this economy, the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to do the right thing and support the tax relief reconciliation package.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Democrats' plan for Iraq. Last week, following the Thanksgiving holiday, I spent a considerable amount of my time with constituents listening to their concerns and discussing a whole array of issues from gas prices, to the new prescription drug benefit, to the war in Iraq. However, Mr. Speaker, some on the other side of the aisle used their time parading on comedy shows decrying the current operation in Iraq and scoring big laughs at the expense of our troops. I believe this further undermines the argument of those who would claim that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a noble course of action. During her big debut on ``Comedy Central,'' the minority leader bragged that ``60 percent of the House Democrats voted against the war to begin with,'' and compared to other Democrats, were ``way ahead of the issue.'' I imagine that statement probably does not sit well with our troops in the field. And, Mr. Speaker, for the other 40 percent of my Democratic colleagues who might also take exception to this statement, I recommend that they discuss their concern with the minority leader.

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, it is important to restate for the morale of our troops that this Congress and this country remain resolved in the war against terrorism. From the streets of Iraq to the mountains of Afghanistan, America will leave no spider hole, no palace, no bunker overlooked as we help freedom-loving people fight the terrorist insurgencies of Islamofascists and protect democracy worldwide. Our greatest loss would be to withdraw our troops, thereby ceding victory to cowardly terrorists who murder and hide under the cover of shadows. Mr. Speaker, over 2,000 of our best and bravest have fought and sacrificed their lives in defense of democracy and in the face of these terrorists. These individuals deserve our thanks and their families need to know that they did not die in vain. Mr. Speaker, a lot of words have been thrown about in this Chamber tonight, but talk is often cheap. And while cheap talk abounds, unfortunately, cheap talk is not bounded, it is not insulated by oceans or mountains, and certainly not by the media. The words of this Congress and its Members echo out beyond this hallowed Chamber, beyond these hallowed Halls to every household and to every foreign shore. Our troops are listening, Mr. Speaker. They hear those who denigrate their mission. They hear those who rely on the false pillar of semantics, seeking to divide the American people. Well, Mr. Speaker, our troops are listening tonight, and while talk is cheap, our vote is sacrosanct. So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put their vote on the Record and put the rhetoric aside. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Let us have this debate for the sake of our troops. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.