Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 462 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 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, House Resolution 462 is a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate 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 that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary and now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. This rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, and it provides that the amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the order printed in the report and 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 a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 462 and the underlying bill, H.R. 3402, the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 to 2009. First, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Additionally, I want to commend the full committee for all their hard work and time involved in the completion of this important authorizing legislation. Mr. Speaker, the American people expect, and they demand, that Congress uphold its obligation to ensure that their money is spent both wisely and effectively, and some of the most important expenditures made on behalf of the American people are included in this legislation we are considering today. Without question, the Department of Justice is charged with the responsibility to enforce and to uphold the Constitution and statutes of this great country. All Americans benefit from an effective and a fully funded law enforcement apparatus at the Federal level, at the State level, and especially at the local level. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3402 would authorize appropriations to fund the agencies under the Department of Justice, including the FBI; the DEA, Drug Enforcement Administration; the United States Attorneys; and the Bureau of Prisons. This bill authorizes $59 billion for these four agencies through 2010. Additionally, this legislation will reauthorize, strengthen, and implement new programs in the Violence Against Women Act, many of which are slated to expire September 30 of this year. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3402 also would build upon many of the reforms instituted by the administration to improve the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, OJP, and Community-Oriented Policing Services, the COPS program. This bill would merge the current Byrne grant program with the local law enforcement block grant programs into one new Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. By merging these two programs, States and local law enforcement will be able to more easily apply for and access vital funding. Mr. Speaker, this streamlined process will improve flexibility for our State and our local governments. A one-size-fits-all mentality is not an acceptable solution for funding individual communities and law enforcement entities that have specialized and diverse needs. A certain degree of deference must be given to State and local law enforcement as they work to combat individual threats to and problems in their own communities. However, H.R. 3402 also ratifies our need for continuing oversight of Federal dollars by creating an Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management that will ensure that the Office of Justice program runs efficiently and applies the money responsibly and effectively. This oversight office will be focused on results, and it will follow the trail of these funds so they can reach their intended target and achieve their full potential. Mr. Speaker, this authorization would also permanently authorize an Office of Weed and Seed Strategies. This office would replace the current Executive Office of Weed and Seed created by the first Bush administration in 1991 as a community-based, multiagency approach to blend law enforcement, crime prevention, and neighborhood restoration strategies to strengthen our communities. With respect to the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act, H.R. 3402 will reauthorize and strengthen various court programs, including the STOP grant program which brings police and prosecutors into a collaborative process with victim services that aims to prevent and punish violence committed against women. As the proud parent of three daughters and the proud grandparent of two granddaughters, I fully recognize the need to give law enforcement every tool available to prevent domestic violence and to protect America's wives, mothers, daughters and granddaughters. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3402 makes significant improvements to these programs. For instance, this legislation assures gender equality by requiring gender neutrality in any grant or activities that assist victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault or human trafficking. Additionally, H.R. 3402 includes provisions to strengthen the privacy rights of victims, to allow for a more vigorous prosecution of cyberstalking and to double, let me repeat, double the penalty for repeat Federal domestic violence offenders. The bill not only strengthens the ability of law enforcement but it also provides victims with additional tools in the fight against domestic violence, including access to trained attorneys and to lay advocacy services. H.R. 3402 would also create two new programs focused on children and youth who are victims of or witnesses to domestic violence. Clearly our children do not have to be physically abused to become victims of domestic violence. Exposure to these types of heinous acts can be enough to scar the life of a child forever, and this reality must be, and it is, addressed by this bill. So, Mr. Speaker, today as this House considers the rule and the underlying legislation and a number of amendments, I would like to encourage my colleagues to keep this thoughtful debate focused on the topic at hand. Funding the Department of Justice and protecting victims of domestic violence are commonsense priorities on both sides of the aisle. Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of this rule. I ask my colleagues to support it and, of course, the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, regarding the amendments that were made in order, in fact, there are 12. Many of the amendments that were authored were non- germane; but in any regard, 12 amendments under this structured rule were made in order. And certainly in the interest of being fair and balanced, six Democratic amendments and six Republican amendments are those we will consider later on this morning. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In regard to the amendment the gentlewoman from New York is referencing, in the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, it was ruled nongermane to this bill. There are other committees certainly that would have jurisdiction over that and need an opportunity to look at that very closely.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in praise of a new Medicare part D prescription drug benefit that is available to all seniors beginning January 1, 2006. This week, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid released information on organizations offering prescription drug plans in each of our 50 States, and the opportunity for sign-up begins November 15. This announcement holds great news for seniors across America. In every State, seniors will have a choice among plan providers. In my home State of Georgia, for example, seniors will be able to choose from 18 different plans, ensuring they can find one that best suits their individual needs. Mr. Speaker, there is more good news for our seniors. Not only will they be eligible for prescription drug coverage from a range of organizations, but they will receive this benefit for less money than previously expected, in some cases, for a premium as low as $20 a month. This is the power of competition, and our seniors will benefit from it. We do not need government price controls. The free market works. Mr. Speaker, for years, our seniors have struggled with the rising cost of prescription drugs, in some cases going without medicine they need to stay healthy. With Medicare part D, seniors will be able to reap the benefits of preventive care and live longer, healthier lives.

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY. Let me again say the gentleman, as ranking member of the Committee on Science, knows that I was not there for subcommittee markup or whole committee markup to debate these amendments that came through committee. I am not a member of that committee, as the gentleman knows. All I can say is in this rule we are giving the minority side an opportunity to bring this issue in the form of an amendment to the floor so we can have a fair and open debate and we can have an up-or- down vote on it. And I am not going to discuss the merits of the amendment. We will let the Member presenting the amendment, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), do that, and then we will vote on it.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the subcommittee chairman and author of the bill.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GINGREY. Again, in response to the gentleman from Tennessee, I am not going to stand here in presenting the rule and try to discuss the merits of the amendments that were made in order. I would just say to the gentleman that the Committee on Rules, I think in an abundance of fairness, looked at these amendments. There were other amendments submitted, probably on both sides of the aisle, that were not made in order; but these four amendments submitted by Members of the gentleman from Tennessee's party, and that means that we felt these should be discussed and that these are reasonable amendments. They are germane to the issue. And the gentleman will have an opportunity to do that.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I rise again in support of House Resolution 451 and the underlying bill. I want to thank my colleagues for a very productive discussion on this very important piece of legislation. Additionally, I would again like to recognize the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), for all of their work on the committee and the final result, H.R. 250. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that this economy has added over 4 million jobs in less than 2 years, we should not limit our potential growth or fail to protect against any future threats to our economic base. For this reason, H.R. 250 epitomizes innovative thinking in an ever-competitive global marketplace. From the establishment of an Interagency Committee on Manufacturing Research and Development, to the reauthorization of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, this bill goes a long way to ensure that our manufacturers are partnered with the resources they need to retool for more efficient production and to be innovative in the future. I want to point out to my colleagues on the other side that this bill in the last Congress was killed in the Senate over disagreement regarding ATP, the Advanced Technology Program. One of Abraham Lincoln's famous quotes was this: ``When it is not possible to achieve the best, it is best to achieve the possible.'' And these manufacturers need this MEP program and they need this bill, and that is what we are doing here today. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly believe American manufacturers should be allowed to compete openly and fairly in this global marketplace. This Congress must ensure that our manufacturers have every tool available to grow and to sell in any and all markets. Therefore, let us pass this bill and make sure that we are untying the hands of our manufacturers so they can fight and win in a global market. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 451 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, House Resolution 451 is a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. The rule 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 Science and now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and shall be considered as read. It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules 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 the 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 a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 451 and its underlying bill, H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005. Mr. Speaker, I first want to recognize the contributions of the Committee on Science chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); the gentleman from Tennessee (Ranking Member Gordon); the gentleman from Oregon (Ranking Member Wu); and the gentleman from Michigan (Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers), of course, the author of H.R. 250. I thank all of them for this timely piece of legislation. Today, the House has an opportunity to consider legislation that will make the United States even more competitive in the global economy. Through the establishment of an interagency committee to coordinate Federal manufacturing research and development efforts, H.R. 250 provides many useful tools to keep the United States on the cutting edge of technological and manufacturing innovation. H.R. 250 would direct the President to establish or designate an interagency committee on manufacturing, research, and development. And in order to ensure sufficient review and diverse input, the committee would also receive assistance from an advisory committee representing nongovernmental interests. This essential component ensures that government efforts are as relevant and responsive as possible to the needs of our manufacturing base. Without question, Mr. Speaker, some of this country's greatest intellectual and innovative resources rest in the halls of our educational institutions and in the research and development departments of our businesses across the country. Therefore, this bill establishes a pilot grant program within the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology to fund research partnerships between firms, community colleges, universities, research institutions, State agencies, and nonprofits to develop new, cutting- edge manufacturing technologies. Additionally, through the Manufacturing Extensive Partnerships, the MEP program, there are regional centers across the country that provide States with grants to allow the successful transfer of technology from the Federal Government to the private sector. Obviously, there is no sense in developing new and innovative technology if it cannot be successfully passed on to the manufacturing sector of our economy, the true engine of economic growth. H.R. 250 would refine the guidelines and the requirements established through the Manufacturing Extension Program to ensure that these regional centers are fulfilling their duty to keep innovative manufacturing technology flowing. Mr. Speaker, I can personally speak to the successes of the Manufacturing Extension Program. The Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership is led by my alma mater, the Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Tech. Georgia Tech's Economic Development Institute, along with the University of Georgia, Georgia Power, and others coordinate and deploy experts to advise and work with manufacturers throughout the State of Georgia, so they can be more innovative, more productive, and maximize their efficiency. Mr. Speaker, on a couple of occasions I have had the opportunity to tour facilities in my district that have been assisted through Georgia's MEP program. Specifically, I toured A&L Shielding, Inc., in Rome, Georgia; and I was able to see concrete improvements made to their facility. These improvements enhanced their efficiency, increased their productivity, making A&L Shielding much more competitive. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any Member of this House who does not realize the importance of education and fostering new and more efficient technology. Therefore, this act would establish a standards education program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology to award grants on a cost-shared basis to institutions of higher education. These grants will go a long way to develop top-notch curricula related to engineering, business, science, and economic standards. This investment in educational standards is not only an investment in future development, but it also is an insurance policy for American competitives. In closing, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 250 marks an excellent opportunity for the House to improve this country's manufacturing and technological potential for many years to come. Again, I would like to encourage each of my colleagues to support not only this rule but also the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in response to some of the remarks made by my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), in regard to the funding of this bill, I want to point out to my colleagues that it does create additional competitive grant programs from which the MEP centers can obtain supplemental funding for manufacturing-related projects. H.R. 250 would also allow MEPs to accept and distribute funds from other Federal agencies without requiring matching funds, and the MEP funding would be authorized at $110 million in fiscal year 2006, including funds for a competitive grant program. The authorization would actually increase by $5 million per year to $120 million in fiscal year 2008. I want to also, Mr. Speaker, highlight again an outstanding MEP program in my State of Georgia, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, my alma mater, Georgia Tech, and the Economic Development Initiative. Let me just highlight Georgia's MEP partnership. It is led by Georgia Tech's Economic Development Institute, and it provides technical assistance, management training and other types of assistance intended to increase productivity and help companies become more competitive in the global market. We know how important that is. This program comprises a team of more than 125 professionals located both at Georgia Tech and throughout regional offices across the State of Georgia. This incredible staff offers a number of vital services and programs to business and industry. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to name a few of these services and programs to demonstrate the extensive range of assistance that is available: Quality and International Standards, Lean Enterprise, Energy Management, Environmental Management, Information Technology, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms, Government Procurement Assistance, B2B Marketing For Manufacturers, Strategic Planning, Economic Development Research, Community Services, Economic Development Training, Tourism, Facilitec, Georgia State-Wide Minority Business Development Center. While this is not an exhaustive list, it is a long one, and I believe it clearly attests to the important impact MEPs have had on and continue to have on business and industry in Georgia. The criticism that this administration or this leadership is not doing enough and is not concerned enough about manufacturing job losses is certainly not true. This is a good bill. As I say, I commend the chairman and the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding to me. I want to point out to him that of the amendments that were made in order, other than the manager's amendment, these were all, all four amendments made in order were Democratic amendments.

Mr. GINGREY. No, I think there were probably some Republican amendments that were left out as well. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the Udall amendment is the one I particularly wanted to reference. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) has an amendment that will be thoroughly discussed here this morning, which actually increases the authorization level of the National Science Foundation's Advanced Technology Education Program.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to America's first responders, the men and women who work every day to safeguard our communities. This Nation owes so much to the firemen, the EMTs and other emergency workers who put themselves in harm's way to keep us and our loved ones safe. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, our country is once again reminded of the dedication and bravery of our first responders. Their contributions in the gulf coast were felt by every person rescued from a rooftop, by every person receiving medical care, and every person evacuated from a flooded city. These past few weeks, we have been able to watch the valor of our first responders on TV and we have read about it in the newspapers, but we should remember that these men and women are protecting our community every single day, not just when a disaster strikes. And while it may not be televised every day, their heroism is certainly valued every day. Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in thanking America's first responders.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share one of the many stories of human compassion and generosity that have emerged in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Organizations across the 11th District of Georgia are working hard to assist Katrina's victims, and the State University of West Georgia in Carrollton is a shining example. As evacuees from the gulf coast began making their way north into our State, the University of West Georgia community realized these victims needed shelter, food, and support immediately. So the university arranged to house 180 evacuees, including 80 children, in Roberts Hall, an empty dorm in the middle of campus. Dormitory living is now providing these families with the privacy and security they need to begin piecing their lives back together. But the State University of West Georgia did not just house these evacuees. The community understood that shelter was only the first step to helping these victims get back on their feet. So the university and Carroll County community mobilized all their resources to assist their adopted residents. The health services staff and nursing department faculty worked to provide the victims with health care services. The university opened its computer labs, and volunteers helped victims locate family members and find relief resources. The community came together to provide food, clothing, personal necessities, and home items for their guests, and local organizations are helping many of these victims find work in the area. Mr. Speaker, it would have been more than enough for the University of West Georgia and Carroll County residents to house, feed and clothe these victims, but this generous community wanted to do more. They wanted to help these victims get their lives back together and start them on the path to recovery. So the Carrollton public school system quickly registered children so they would not fall behind in their education. Because a college dormitory is only a temporary living situation, the Carroll County Housing Authority is helping these evacuees locate more permanent housing in West Georgia. Counselors and social workers are on the university's campus every day helping victims access both emotional and financial resources. Perhaps what is most inspiring, Mr. Speaker, is the way the West Georgia student body has gotten involved. Students are supervising play activities for the children. They are helping school-aged kids with their homework every night. Campus organizations are planning social and recreational activities for the evacuees, trying to bring some joy to their incredibly trying days. Mr. Speaker, this level of personal and organizational generosity would be impressive anywhere in America, but in Carrollton, Georgia, this outpouring of support is especially heartening. Carroll County was hit by severe tornadoes and storms in the days following Hurricane Katrina. The community spent much of Labor Day weekend cleaning up the 30 homes that were destroyed and the many other community resources damaged by the storms and, yes, mourned a life tragically lost. Yet even as this community was recovering from its own hardships, it was eager to help others in need. By opening their doors and hearts to Katrina's evacuees, Carroll County residents assured their guests that together they would rise to the challenges of this natural disaster. And, together, they have. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in praising the amazing work of the University of West Georgia and Carroll County community. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we have seen the best side of humanity. We have shown that no American is a stranger, and the State University of West Georgia exemplifies this amazing American capacity to help others, no matter how great their need. I thank the school and the community for their service.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in the state of Georgia, it is a privilege to welcome President Chen of the Republic of China to the United States. As you know, the United States has a rich history of personal liberty, democracy, and republican government. It has been over 26 years since Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act recognizing our nation's friendship. It is my hope that all of China will one day live in a peaceful Democratic society, enjoying free enterprise and personal freedom. Our shared goals of democracy, increasing standards of living, peaceful association, and economic development are vital to the growth and security of our nations. The Republic of China is a strong example of the achievement of these goals. Mr. Speaker, Taiwan enjoys a democratic government that fully upholds human rights, where its citizens enjoy the freedom to assemble and practice their religion of choice. These attributes allow the Republic of China to benefit from the world's 14th largest economy and one of the world's highest standards of living. I personally cherish the close relationship between the Republic of China and the United States. Thousands of Taiwanese students study at U.S. colleges and universities while Taiwanese tourists choose the United States as their number one overseas destination outside of Asia. Moreover, Taiwanese consumers make the Republic of China one of our nation's closest trade allies. I would like to thank President Chen for the support and friendship of the Republic of China. I believe he deserves a great deal of credit and thanks for his leadership in successfully maintaining the peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you will join me in once again welcoming President Chen to the United States as our nation looks forward to working with his administration to promote peace, explore new economic frontiers, and expand our friendship.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding to me in this Special Order tonight. Of course, he brings to us an expertise that few Members of Congress really have and an understanding of this rather complex system of levees. The city of New Orleans, how it is constructed and how it is protected, and the lower Mississippi, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), of course, understands that and had an opportunity within the last 10 days to actually go down to the area of devastation, as he points out; and I am very happy that he is going to be working to try to restore and get it right as we seek to rebuild. I had, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity that I want to share with my colleagues. It was entirely different really, not from the engineering technical perspective, which I have very little expertise on. But as a physician Member of the Congress, I found myself going into the Labor Day weekend enjoying a dove shoot. The opening day of dove season in my great State of Georgia was that Saturday of Labor Day, the long Labor Day weekend. And as I was sitting in a dove field waiting for these few birds to come over that I had very little chance of hitting, I began to feel a little bit compelled to do something, especially as a physician Member. And I was fortunate enough, when I got back home, to call around and realize that there was an opportunity to go into Louisiana, into Mississippi, and to try to help out a little bit. A lot of folks have done that; and I am sure that they felt, coming back from that experience, just as I did, tremendously gratified to have made the effort. But I basically, Mr. Speaker, hooked a ride with an angel flight. Angel flights are private pilots or corporate pilots who are willing in an emergency situation to donate their aircraft to fly either medical personnel or supplies and equipment into an area. And that is exactly what I ended up doing. On Sunday morning of the Labor Day weekend, a good friend, a compassionate citizen from Rome, Georgia, Mr. Bob Ledbetter, Jr., allowed me to fly down on his plane, an angel flight, to Baton Rouge with medical supplies, three nurses, two from Emory, one from Cobb County. We basically went to one of the largest shelters in Baton Rouge, 5,000 people there at the River Center, took those medical supplies. And then I spent some time seeing patients. No life-threatening emergencies, but stress patients that have been through a lot, fatigue, some who had swallowed the contaminated water and were suffering symptoms from that. But mainly I just had an opportunity to talk to evacuees to get a sense of what they went through and to also see volunteers who were just working day and night with very little sleep and doing it in a most compassionate way. Not perfect order, but organized to the best of their ability. I want to give very high marks to the Red Cross, Mr. Speaker, at the River Center in Baton Rouge. If the gentleman from Iowa will allow me, I would like to mention some names of people that I felt need some pats on the back and some accolades. First, I met the director of the Red Cross effort at the River Center, Mr. Jeff Schnoor. His name is a little difficult to pronounce, but Jeff is a retired military man, 21 years in the military, a single parent, I think from San Antonio, had been working with the Red Cross for 12 years, been through a lot of disasters, but told me that this was the toughest assignment that he had ever had. And he handled himself in that entire center with 5,000 evacuees with such calmness and patience. It was a very difficult time, but he handled it extremely well. I also was able, Mr. Speaker, to meet with a group of physicians who had gone down from Atlanta, and I want to particularly mention Dr. Cecil Bennett. He had an organization that he put together through his Atlanta primary care practice, some of his partners, some of the nurses that work for him, and he called this Operation Brother's Keeper. And his focus was to not let these angel flights just come down with medical supplies and personnel and fly back empty, but he was determined to see that any evacuee, displaced person, that had family or friends in another State, particularly in Georgia, to be given an opportunity to fly back and to get into maybe a less crowded situation and join family or friends in another location. And so when I came back from Baton Rouge, it was with another angel flight pilot, Mr. Steve Stemmer, in a very small plane carrying the pilot, myself, and four evacuees, one of whom had just had a baby a week before the hurricane hit. So it was really quite a thing to see. There was a couple in Baton Rouge. We had worked all afternoon in the shelter seeing patients; and then, lo and behold, it got to the wee hours of the morning and we realized we had no place to sleep except maybe on the concrete floor. And this couple, Eva and David Kelley, took in six of us, and their teenage boys had to sleep on the couch, and they gave us their beds. I guess what I want to say, and I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa for giving me the opportunity, is that I had a chance to see the best of human nature. I know right after the levees broke and we were all so shocked to see all that water in the city of New Orleans and particularly shocked by the looting and the kind of mob behavior that we see in situations like that, maybe that did bring out the worst of human nature in a very limited few; but what I saw, Mr. Speaker, was the best of human nature in the majority, the vast majority of people. And not just in the volunteers and the professionals, the Red Cross, who were doing their job, but really in the evacuees themselves. They are good people. They explained to me why they did not leave. I was very curious to know if they had been able to hear the warnings. In almost every instance, Mr. Speaker, they had clearly heard the warnings. Some of them had never been out of the city of New Orleans in their entire lives, and they had been through plenty of near misses without this big perfect storm flooding their city, and they knew that some of the neighbors in the past had actually left their property, only to come back and find New Orleans dry but their property totally ransacked and looted and destroyed. Even if they did not own. If they were renting property, everything that was in there was theirs. It was their stuff. They had that pride, that sense of ownership. So it gave me a much better understanding as to why these people did not leave. They were not stupid. They had a good reason. So we need to continue to be compassionate and realize that, while it is hard to look for any good out of such a tremendous disaster, natural disaster, I think we do have a chance, if we all pull together and do not get into too much partisan bickering over this and finger-pointing, to help New Orleans and the gulf coast and the State of Mississippi and Louisiana rebuild and maybe make the lives better for a lot of these people that did not have such a good existence prior to this storm. So I thank the gentleman for allowing me to come and share just a few thoughts tonight with my colleagues.