Phil Gingrey

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman that since his amendment passed on June 15, Great Britain has been attacked twice, so circumstances have changed.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I continue to reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation I have introduced to protect ordinary American citizens from tax abuse at the hands of our government. I was shocked when the United States Supreme Court ruled last month that governments could take private homes, businesses and churches and turn them over to land developers in the name of tax revenue. My bill, the Eminent Domain Tax Relief Act, would prevent the government from adding insult to this injury. It would eliminate the capital gains tax that an individual has to pay on the money he receives for his condemned property. Eminent domain abuse on its own is intolerable. But taxing those who lose their property is even more deplorable. There is no excuse for making a person pay capital gains tax on something she did not want to sell in the first place. Mr. Speaker, my legislation says this: No taxation on government condemnation. I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Kentucky for not only recognizing me for a few minutes, but for putting together this special hour to discuss something that is so important. As I went across my district, and I know my colleagues did the same thing, talking about Social Security when the President first rolled out his suggestion of having an individual personal account, it was not just his idea, but I think a very good idea, to carve out up to 4 percent of the 12.4 percent payroll tax in an optional way for those workers under 55, and to let that part of their Social Security account be an account that they actually own, they actually have ownership of, and it could enjoy the miracle of compound interest. Einstein said that was the greatest power in the world, even more powerful than atomic fission. But clearly that was a good idea. I think it is still a good idea. But as I talked about that in my town hall meetings across the Eleventh District of Georgia, Mr. Speaker, the one recurring theme that I heard from folks, mostly seniors in the audience, but a lot of times they were younger workers, they said, Congressman, we are not sure about this individual personal account thing. I think people are afraid of change, and they would express a little bit of hesitation and doubt about it. But one thing that seemed consistent almost every time I did a town hall meeting, and I think I probably have done at least 15 on this subject, was whatever you do, Congressman, please, go back to Washington and tell your colleagues on both sides of the aisle that this business of robbing, of raiding that trust fund has got to stop. If you do not do anything else, just solve that problem, because nothing else really matters if you continue to take this excess money that has been coming in since 1935 when we had 15 workers for every beneficiary and people died before they reached the age at which they could earn a benefit at age 65. Life expectancy was 64 on average, and we did not have any problem. But we have time over these coming years. I say ``we,'' and my colleague pointed out just a little earlier, we were not around, not many of us, I think I was 3 years old when Franklin Delano Roosevelt died. But Congresses have been spending that excess money in the so- called trust fund to the point that $1.7 trillion is missing. But I think it is important for us, my colleagues, to let the American people know that that money was not squandered, it was not wasted. We are not talking about fraud and abuse; we are talking about spending money on things like K through 12 education, Head Start programs, benefits for our veterans, which they so richly deserve, in times like we are now when we are in a shooting war and we have to equip our troops to make sure that we give them every opportunity to win. That is where the money has gone. I think Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are, by their very nature, compassionate. And when these folks come to us and say, we need just a little bit more, Mr. Congressman and Mrs. Congresswoman, we need just a little bit more, we have little children that have needs, we have disabled people that have needs, that is where the trust fund has gone. So I think it is understandable. We can play this blame game and finger point and say, well, the Democrats did this, or President Clinton, or the Republicans have spent the money, or President Bush is spending the money to wage a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what we are talking about now with this idea of the GROW account is to answer the complaint of the people in the 11th district of Georgia, and I am sure my colleagues' districts as well, let us do finally put a lockbox on the Social Security Trust Fund. So I really commend the members of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), and my colleagues here tonight, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and, before that, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) was with us. I think the Committee on Ways and Means has really come up with a novel idea. I hope we will not abandon the thought of individual personal accounts coming out of the payroll tax, and I think at some point we will do that, and we need to continue to work on the solvency of Social Security. But this is a great way, these GROW accounts, to say that we are going to take the excess, and there will be, Mr. Speaker, an excess of revenue coming in over benefits being paid out from now until 2017. I do not think anybody disagrees with that. I think one of my colleagues tonight said that we are talking about maybe as much as $700 billion over that period of time before we reach that cross-over where the amount coming in is the same as the amount going out. But we have got that window of opportunity, we are talking about 12 years, where we can allocate that money, that excess money to individuals younger than age 55, unless they opt out, and then in 2009, as I understand the GROW accounts, we will actually not only have the opportunity to invest that into government bonds, but put it in a well-managed Thrift Savings Plan so that our beneficiaries can then enjoy the miracle of compound. So I am really glad to be here tonight to lend my thoughts to it. I think it is a great idea. I commend the committee. I look forward to having the opportunity to go back home during the August recess and tell my colleagues that yes, we are finally going to respond to the best suggestion that I have heard, and it was from the folks back home; let us finally put a lockbox on the excess dollars coming in. With that, I will yield back to the gentlewoman from Kentucky and thank her for letting me participate this evening.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a courageous police officer from my home town of Marietta, Georgia. Last week, Officer Andrew Phillips was invited to the White House, where President Bush awarded him the National Public Safety Medal of Valor. This award is given out to honor public safety workers who show exceptional courage in the line of duty. In fact, it is the Nation's highest award for police bravery. Officer Phillips is a model example of this bravery. When two of his fellow officers came under rifle fire during a house raid, Officer Phillips pursued the still-armed assailant, chasing him down and taking him into custody. Mr. Speaker, Officer Phillips exemplifies the dedication and true bravery we rely on to keep our communities safe. I ask Members to join me in thanking Officer Phillips for his tremendous courage on behalf of the citizens of Marietta.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise to address the matter of stem cell research, in light of the emergence of viable alternatives that would continue scientific discovery while respecting human life in all forms and in all stages. I also rise today as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 3144, the Respect For Life Pluripotent Stem Cell Act of 2005. I further would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) for not only his steadfast commitment to scientific advancement, but also his steadfast commitment to defending the sanctity of human life. In a debate that has been dominated by an it-is-the-only-way approach, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) has introduced a solution that could achieve the same objective as the Castle-DeGette bill, while preserving human life at its most vulnerable stage. Madam Speaker, I recognize that people of goodwill can disagree on the matter of when human life begins. However, no one can dispute that an embryo is at least potential life; and many people, my physician self included, believe an embryo to be a living human being, fully vested with the rights that we all enjoy. Therefore, even if someone only believes an embryo to be a potential life, they should support the Bartlett bill because it accomplishes, Madam Speaker, the same ends as the Castle-DeGette bill, while giving the benefit of doubt and erring on the side of human life. Having practiced for nearly 30 years as a pro-life OB-GYN, I cosponsored the Bartlett bill, because it represents the most moral and judicious solution to the stem cell research debate. Madam Speaker, the Bartlett bill would provide funding to the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, $15 million for the creation of a research program focused on perfecting the necessary techniques to extract stem cells from an embryo without, let me repeat, without harming the embryo in any way, shape, or form. This bill further acts in a responsible manner by mandating that no human embryos be harmed or destroyed, even in the initial perfection of the technique, for the research will be done on nonhuman primates. The Bartlett bill represents an acceptable compromise to most Americans, because they would like to see scientific advancement to cure diseases such as Type 1 diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, while making sure human life is never exploited or harmed in the process. Madam Speaker, I am also very pleased to see that Majority Leader Frist has decided to shepherd a similar bill in the Senate. This marks an important step in advancing morally sound and acceptable stem cell research. This Congress truly has an incredible opportunity to send to the President's desk a stem cell research bill that respects human life and supports scientific advancement. I would again like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) for taking the lead on this issue and for finding an acceptable and moral solution. I also extend my gratitude to Senator Frist for his efforts to advance this bill in the Senate. I encourage all of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, both pro-life and pro-choice, to take a good hard look at the Bartlett bill. I think they will see that it is the best option to fight disease and find cures in a responsible manner. This marks an opportunity for this Congress to put partisanship aside and just do the right thing. Madam Speaker, the American people expect no less of us.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my deepest condolences to our friends in London who suffered a heinous attack of terrorism last week when several bombs tore through their public transit system. Events like the London bombing remind us how absolutely important it is to stand firm against terrorism wherever it rears its hideous head. We must never let down our guard. Next week, the House is slated to take up legislation to reauthorize 16 provisions in the PATRIOT Act. Those in Congress acted quickly in the wake of September 11 to get this strong legislation passed to help safeguard our Nation from the agony of another terrorist attack. So far, we have been successful. The PATRIOT Act has helped our intelligence and law enforcement officials prevent another attack from occurring on American soil. But last week's London bombings remind us that we are still in the middle of a fierce battle. Our safety depends on our intelligence and law enforcement officials having the tools they need to track terrorists and to prevent terrorism, at home and abroad. Indeed, this is not the time to let down our guard.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I wanted to mention to the gentleman that as an OB/GYN physician, of course I have had some experience with some of the processes that can occur in reproductive endocrine laboratories and the technique dealing with infertile couples, and I have had a discussion with the gentleman from Maryland about this. But in a situation where the couple is infertile and it is because of male infertility, there is nothing wrong with the egg, but there is a very, very low sperm count in the male, and normally it takes probably 1,000 sperm to successfully fertilize an egg in the natural way. In fact, the normal sperm count in a male is about 60 million. But even a sperm count as low as 1,000, pregnancy can occur in the normal, natural way. But when it gets much lower than that, it becomes less and less possible. But they have a technique. And there is an acronym, Madam Speaker. There is an acronym for everything, it seems, even though this is not in the military. That acronym is ICSI. It stands for intracytoplasmic sperm injection, ICSI. And these biologists working with reproductive endocrinologists, medical doctors who specialize in infertility, can literally take a single sperm and with a needle inject that sperm into the egg and create a life, and that has been done many times, and not just at the NIH, but in a lot of these infertility clinics across this great country, in my State of Georgia. It is something that is done routinely. So what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is talking about in this poster presentation in regard to waiting to just the right point for these scientists to be able to develop a technique to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying that embryo and beyond the point where that single cell itself would be an embryo, he knows of what he speaks. And I wanted to have an opportunity to share that, Madam Speaker, with our colleagues and make sure they understand that here again we are not talking about Star Wars technology here. We are talking about things that are being done today.

Mr. GINGREY. I certainly thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. It is indeed a pleasure to again be with him tonight, Madam Speaker. Any opportunity that I have as an original cosponsor of the gentleman from Maryland's legislation, H.R. 3144, is an opportunity that I gladly accept no matter what the hour. The importance of this issue really cannot be overstated. I know the gentleman from Maryland as he started this Special Order hour discussed the fact that of the so-called throwaway embryos, throwaway babies as we see it in these in vitro fertilization clinics that exist across this country, I think somebody estimated there were 400,000 of them and that in some instances couples who had gone through in vitro fertilization and completed their families truly would have some extra embryos that they at least at a certain point in time had no intention of having reimplanted. So for the time being, maybe they were excess embryos. But those of us who feel very strongly about the sanctity of life truly believe that there is no such thing as an excess human life at either extreme, the very youngest embryonic stage or the very oldest, many of whom I would be referring to, our octogenarians and older who might be in a nursing home suffering from Alzheimer's disease at the final stages of their lives, but all of these lives are extremely important; and as the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, there are actually 100 or close to 100 little babies, up to 6, 8 months old now who were referred to as the snowflake babies. They actually were donated to couples who were barren, infertile, from these couples who had completed their family and had these excess embryos frozen that they were not going to use. We have seen them. I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) had a lot to do with bringing, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), these little children to the House, to the Congress, and indeed to the White House during the week that we were debating the bill brought to us by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette). As the gentleman from Maryland points out, there are a lot more of those little lives that are still on ice, if you will; and the gentleman from Maryland is so right in pointing out that, hey, maybe one of those would be an Einstein one of these days, the next Einstein. Some of my colleagues say, well, just 100 out of 400,000, that is not very many. Indeed, it is a fourth of this body, Madam Speaker, almost a fourth of 435 Members of the House of Representatives. There may be some real smart ones remaining on ice that possibly could end up being United States Senators. More importantly, of course, it could be the next Pope John II or Pope John III or Martin Luther King, Jr. or Abraham Lincoln. Who is to say what we are talking about as a throwaway life? I am just so grateful for the gentleman from Maryland for bringing us a bill, H.R. 3144, which avoids this issue of destroying human life for the purpose of obtaining embryonic stem cells. I do not think, Madam Speaker, that we will ever get to the point in this Chamber, as much as I, and I am sure the gentleman from Maryland is of the same mind-set, of wanting to do things in a bipartisan fashion with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this issue, this pro-life/pro-choice issue. The country is probably pretty evenly divided. This body is probably evenly divided. But the point is we do not have to get into a knockdown, drag-out, hair-pulling, fingernail-scratching bloodbath over this issue. That is what the gentleman from Maryland is bringing to us, an opportunity to support a bill that does not lead us down that road where there seems like there will never be a meeting of the minds. This opportunity, basically, as he is pointing out with his posters in regard to the ability, with some research, to be able to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying human life, without destroying the embryo, I have heard him refer to this almost like an embryonic biopsy. As I understand the bill, it is an opportunity to encourage, with the President's blessing, increased funding through the NIH for research on nonhuman primates to make sure that this biopsy, actually it has already been done in genetic counseling studies on couples who have a really strong family history of inheritable diseases, something like hemophilia or Duchenne's muscular dystrophy where maybe if it is an adult child, it has a 50 percent chance of having one of these life- threatening, eventually fatal diseases. We are already doing testing on those embryos to make sure that it would be safe to put them back into the mother's womb to grow and develop and become a full-term fetus and there has been no harm in those instances. This is not wild-eyed science, something that is Star Wars mentality. Not at all. We are talking about one of the brightest Members of this body, a Ph.D. physiologist, a doctor of physiology who has taught in medical school. Madam Speaker, when I was in medical school, it was my instructor who taught me physiology, the functioning of the human body in a healthy situation, whether we are talking about the heart, the lungs, or any organ system of the body. That is the study of physiology. That is who we are talking about when we reference this Member, the gentleman from Maryland, who is bringing us this bill. He knows of what he speaks. He has taught not only physiology but also embryology. I know my colleagues as they listen to his presentation tonight and they look at the material, the visual aides that he has with him, it is clear that his understanding, his depth of knowledge is far beyond maybe what even the physician Members of this body have. So it is with a deep amount of respect for him that I have signed on to this bill. I am fully supportive of it. It gives us an opportunity to address this issue of trying to find a way with stem cells, whether they are adult or embryonic; and I tend to agree with the gentleman from Maryland that embryonic stem cells probably do have a little more potential, although we have had great success in adult stem cells and a lot of these diseases that our colleagues have talked about and we have seen public service advertisements, famous people, actors, former politicians, a former first lady, families of those suffering from diabetes, spinal cord injury, degenerative disease, Parkinsonism, Alzheimer's. These things really tear at your heartstrings. There is no argument, I do not think, in this body, in a partisan way about wanting to help and wanting to use science to the best of our ability to look for a cure. There is not a guarantee. There is absolutely no guarantee. There are probably lots of complications, false starts, two steps back for one step forward. There will be lots of money, Federal dollars probably being spent on research. But the point is the President in August of 2001 was absolutely right, in my humble opinion, in regard to his decision to put a moratorium on the harvesting of stem cells, embryonic stem cells that would result in the destruction of human life. At that point, there were some 60 cell lines already in existence that our university research scientists at NIH and other places were using. The President said, that is perfectly okay to continue. Those lives have already been destroyed in obtaining those stem cell lines. Good research was occurring. The President, this President, George W. Bush, is the very first President that, in fact, allowed Federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells. So those who criticize or suggest, Madam Speaker, that this President is insensitive and uncaring, I suggest to my colleagues that this President is the most caring that we have ever had in regard to this issue. He has done more than any other President. He does not deserve to be criticized, but rather applauded for his efforts in this regard. And I think he is steadfast in his determination not to destroy human life because, as the gentleman from Maryland has pointed out and as I just said, we do not know those so-called extra embryos, those throwaway embryos. We do not know what those lives entail. We do know that they have a very unique, full complement of DNA that have all of their genetic material they are going to ever have. They are the tiniest of human life, little tiny babies. We call them embryos, but they are little tiny embryos whose lives are frozen and suspended. But they should have that opportunity. And even the couples who think, Madam Speaker, that they would never use those embryos, we have witnessed tragedies every day in the news, this 24-hour cable news that we are subjected to, but we read about children that are kidnapped, abused, murdered, the situation in Aruba, the situation in Nebraska. We can just name so many where people think that their family is complete and they have got all they want out of their reproductive life, and all of a sudden, as the old country song goes, ``some days are diamonds and some days are stones,'' all of a sudden we have a few days that are stones and there might be a tragic loss of a child or more than one child, and all of a sudden maybe those frozen embryos do not seem so expendable anymore. So that is why this issue is so important and why I feel so very passionate, not just myself and the author of this bill, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), but a number of others who have signed on to this bill. The White House, I think, is very supportive of this. There is a companion piece of legislation, as I understand; it originating in the other body. We are on to something here. And again it is a pleasure to join my colleague tonight and share these thoughts, try to maybe enlighten my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Madam Speaker; and I do thank the gentleman for giving me an opportunity to be with him to discuss such an important issue. And I will be glad to stick around for a little while if we want to get into a colloquy later on, but I thank him for giving me this opportunity.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding me this time, and I am here in support not only of H.R. 742 but of all four of these OSHA reform bills. What we are talking about here, my colleagues, is leveling the playing field, that is all, reforming a 34-year-old act that is long overdue for reform. During the 2004 elections, what we heard constantly from the other side was the concern about outsourcing of jobs, of losing jobs in this country. Well, there is no way we can compete with other countries with these burdensome rules and regulations like OSHA puts on our small businessmen and -women in this country who create most of the jobs. We just need a level playing field, and I am proud to stand in support of these four bills, and I am proud of my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). Nobody is more concerned about workers and workers' health. He has been a leader all these years in regard to issues like the Patients' Bill of Rights. He has shown great compassion, and I commend him for bringing these bills, and for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman, and the committee for working through this process. So as my colleagues have said before me, it is time to make these reforms and level the playing field. Yes, protect our workers, but also protect our small employers so they can continue to create these jobs and compete in the world market. Then, and only then, will we end the outsourcing of jobs.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Well, I am very, very honored to have the opportunity to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite), Mr. Speaker, and I commend her for putting this hour together to talk about the rights of women. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the gentlewoman from Florida, with others in this body, have recently put together a women's caucus, a bipartisan effort with Members from both sides of the aisle coming together on women's issues, and I really commend them for that. I commend her, and I commend the bipartisan spirit, Mr. Speaker, in speaking out on women's issues. We Members of this body who happen to be physicians, and I think there are now ten of us, Mr. Speaker, including yourself, recently did the same thing coming together in a bipartisan fashion on issues of health care. I think what we are showing tonight as we discuss women's issues is we can do that as a Congress, and our citizens in every district, all 435 of this great body, they want us to do that. They realize we have differences of opinions on certain things, and maybe sometimes it seems like it is virtually impossible to come together, but I know that we can. I know we can on health care issues, and I know we can on women's issues. And so, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for putting this together, and especially tonight, talking about Afghanistan and Iraq; maybe, in some ways comparing and contrasting their situation, the women in these two countries, compared to what we enjoy today. Mr. Speaker, in this country, women have equal rights, and I think it was mentioned earlier, maybe by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), about the fact that in this body, in the combined bodies of the House and Senate, 14 percent of 535 Members are women. Yet in these elections that just took place on January 30 of this year in Iraq, some 31 percent of the 275 seats in the transitional national assembly went to these brave women who, before that, under Saddam Hussein and that brutal dictatorship, they were not even given the opportunity to vote. Through our efforts and trying to bring some democracy, Mr. Speaker, to that part of the world, we have given them the opportunity, as we turn the country back over to the Iraqi people, for them to hold their own elections. And not only did women vote, they voted in force. Thirty-one percent in their very first election are now members of the transitional national assembly. I think it is a wonderful thing that they have that opportunity. And as I said, Mr. Speaker, so much of these things, these freedoms that we just take for granted, for instance, there is no longer a glass ceiling in this country. I know in my own medical practice we had six doctors, three men and three women, and in that specialty of obstetrics and gynecology, probably 60 percent nationwide of the specialists are women. When my wife, Mr. Speaker, graduated from college, and I will not say how many years ago because she will get mad at me if I do that, but with a degree in psychology and a minor in religion, there were not really great opportunities for her in the job market. She did not have a teacher's degree so she could not teach, and so it was either secretarial or flight attendant status, and that was really just a few short years ago. I am so proud, being the father of three daughters and the grandfather of two granddaughters, two grandsons as well, Mr. Speaker, to see that those little girls have an opportunity to, yes, be a mom and a homemaker if they want to, or be out in the business world at the highest level of corporate America, the highest level of this body politic that we enjoy so much here in Washington. These are things that we just kind of take for granted. But thanks to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and her leadership on this issue, to come tonight and to spend this time and this special hour talking about these brave women who stood in line, we all are filled with such admiration. Mr. Speaker, I remembered the picture, I guess this one right here, and I want to show it again, because I will never forget this one, with that peace sign and that purple indelible ink to prove that there was no vote of fraud; that a person would vote once and only once. Maybe this took a week or more, by the way, Mr. Speaker, as you know, to wear off. These women were putting themselves in grave danger of being killed because they had the courage to go and vote when the minority was determined to see that they did not, that they returned to the same old same old. My colleagues mentioned that one of the recurring themes that they heard when they were visiting, the Women's Caucus actually went to Iraq and Afghanistan. And what those women were saying, the new leaders who are struggling to get their feet under them, please do not leave us. Please do not leave us. We need your help. They were crying out, we need mentoring. We are new at this, and we want to succeed. This is the same thing that the president and vice president, this new transitional National Assembly is saying to us today in regard to this question of Mr. President of the United States, when are you going to bring our troops home. As the President said in North Carolina just last week, if the Iraqi people wanted us to bring the troops home tomorrow we would; but clearly they do not. What a terrible message it would be to set a date certain and say in a year or year and a half we are coming home, whether we have succeeded or not. No. These men and women in Iraq are absolutely right when they say do not leave us, and we will not leave them. It is times like this when we bring this home to our colleagues and remind them of what we have accomplished. I have been to Iraq twice. I went the first time in December of 2003, 5 days after the capture of Saddam Hussein. We went to Fallujah, and that was before things completely deteriorated in that part of Iraq. I went with a small bipartisan group. Each Member brought something from his or her district. I brought school books donated by the great men and women of the Rome Rotary Club, 3,000 pounds of school books and equipment. Yet when we went into schools, they were all closed. There were no little kids in those elementary schools. There were no teachers. But today those schools are open. There are teachers to instruct those little kids in elementary school. And yes, Mr. Speaker, a good portion of those students are female. Before we gave these wonderful people an opportunity for freedom and equal rights, little girls were not given an opportunity to get an education. It is unbelievable to us. We take so much for granted. Again, the opportunity to share with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), and the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) to talk about this issue tonight, I thank the gentlewoman for staying up late and for preparing this and for giving me an opportunity to participate, because, truly, we cannot go home and leave them alone. We have to continue and finish the job.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the author of H. Res. 340, a resolution expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan resolution. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to take this opportunity to thank the leadership of this House and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for so expeditiously scheduling and shepherding this resolution to the floor for a vote. I would also like to thank the over 75 Members who have contacted my office to become cosponsors of the resolution and those who are speaking in support of it tonight. H. Res. 340 demonstrates the commitment of this House to not stand idly by, but rather to act now in addressing this atrocious and negligent decision. By a margin of only one vote, the Supreme Court has struck down 2 centuries' worth of precedents and constitutional protections for property owners. It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that the American people, the owners of this great country, are never run over by a handful of judges who refuse to enforce the written laws of this land and to uphold the guarantees of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, despite the failings of the majority in the New London decision, at least there were four justices who got it right. I applaud them in their steadfast determination and commitment to uphold the Constitution and express their own dismay at the majority's rulings. As Justice O'Connor writes in the dissenting opinion: ``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, and the beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process.'' No home, no business, no property, no person is safe from the destructive consequences of this decision. Imagine a local city council using its power of eminent domain to condemn and demolish the local church or synagogue and put up a Starbucks because God is not making them any money. As Americans across this country prepare to celebrate the 229th anniversary of our independence, I can think of no greater tribute to our fine and Founding Fathers and no greater gift to the American people than declaring that this land is their land and not the government's. Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the leadership of this House and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and I would encourage all of my colleagues to pass this resolution and speak united in one voice declaring liberty and justice for all. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the author of H. Res. 340, a resolution expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. the City of New London Connecticut. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan Resolution. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank the leadership of this House and Chairman Sensenbrenner for so expeditiously scheduling and shepherding this Resolution to the floor for a vote. I would also like to thank the over seventy-five members who have contacted my office to become cosponsors of this Resolution, and those who are speaking in support tonight. House Resolution 340 demonstrates the commitment of this House to not stand idly by, but rather to act now in addressing this atrocious and negligent decision. By a margin of only one vote, the Supreme Court has struck down two centuries worth of precedent and Constitutional protections for property owners. It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that the American people, the owners of this great country, are never run over by a handful of judges who refuse to enforce the written laws of this land and uphold the guarantees of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, despite the failings of the majority in the New London decision, at least there were four justices who got it right. I applaud them in their steadfast determination and commitment to uphold the Constitution and express their own dismay at the majority's ruling. As Justice O'Connor writes in the dissenting opinion: ``any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party . . . and the beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process.'' No home, no business, no property, no person is safe from the destructive consequences of this decision. Imagine, a local city council using its power of eminent domain to condemn and demolish the local Church or Synagogue and put up a Starbucks, because God isn't making them any money. As Americans across this great country prepare to celebrate the 229th Anniversary of our Independence, I can think of no greater tribute to our Founding Fathers and no greater gift to the American people than declaring that this land is their land and not the government's. Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the Leadership of this House and Chairman Sensenbrenner, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to pass this Resolution and speak united in one voice declaring liberty and justice for all.

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I do ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an amendment that I have offered to H.R. 3058. I would first like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for this opportunity to speak on behalf of my amendment and to explain its intent within the greater context of the recent New London decision by the Supreme Court. The amendment that I have offered would prevent any funds appropriated to the Community Development Block Grant program from being used to support an economic development project that acquires land through eminent domain. Like many members of this body and most people in this country, I am incensed by the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo v. the City of New London that has effectively turned the deeds to every American home and business over to the government. Imagine a sign on every piece of real personal property that reads: For Sale By Government. While most people recognize that eminent domain has been used historically for the building of a school or a road which serves the entire community, the American people will never accept the idea that government can arbitrarily take away one person's home or business and give it to someone else for the sole purpose of increasing that government's tax base. Government should never have the power to force a person out so that a mini mall can move in. In the city of Augusta, Georgia, where I grew up there is a little shop called the Sunshine Bakery. Owned by the same family for over 100 years, the Sunshine Bakery may not be a Fortune 500 company, Mr. Chairman, but it is this family's livelihood, and it serves as an important part of the community. Yet, the City of Augusta could now shut down the Sunshine Bakery and sell the property and their life to the highest bidder. Frankly, such an act is not only un-American but it is also unconstitutional. Unfortunately, by the narrowest of majorities, the Supreme Court last Thursday decided to abandon its responsibility to uphold the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. By a margin of only one vote, five justices have thrown out over 2 centuries worth of precedent and protections. They have taken away the constitutional guarantee that no one's home or business could be forcibly taken away by the government except for public use and with just compensation. Mr. Chairman, I encourage every American to read the majority's opinion. Rather than ruling about what is public use and what is not public use, this narrow majority just threw up their hands and allowed government to take, for all intents and purposes, whenever it so desires. Congress cannot, and I trust will not, stand idly by while States and local governments abuse their power of eminent domain. From the largest State to the smallest city, no government should use the New London decision as cover to take away personal real property and give it to a developer to increase the tax base. Make no mistake, I fully support economic development and improvement. Like most Americans, I believe that communities should work in conjunction with their citizens to build stronger, more economically vibrant communities. However, what has distinguished this great country of ours above all others is our bedrock belief in individual liberty and property protections and the security these liberties and protections offer. This security has fostered economic prosperity. It has created a society in which this prosperity can be enjoyed. The Supreme Court, by removing these protections, has struck a serious and dangerous blow to the American way of life. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would use Congress' power of the purse to make sure that this government never subsidizes eminent domain abuse and never subsidizes the theft and destruction of people's homes and businesses. However, Mr. Chairman, in light of the point of order reserved against my amendment, momentarily I will ask to withdraw it. This amendment marks only the start of this discussion, and it is my hope that this Congress will set the record straight for the sake of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in defense of one of the most fundamental guarantees afforded us by our Constitution, our right to own private property. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, by the narrowest of margins, the Supreme Court has, for all practical purposes, placed a for-sale sign on the doorstep of every American home or business and it reads, ``for sale by government.'' Mr. Speaker, by a vote of 5 to 4, these sacred property rights have been thrown out in the name of expediency and greed. Justice O'Connor stated it best in the minority's dissent when she called the majority's opinion ``perverse.'' Mr. Speaker, this perversity cannot stand. Therefore, I introduce House Resolution 340 to demonstrate this House's resolve and dedication to defend our constitutionally guaranteed property rights. I call on all Members of this Chamber on both sides of the aisle to speak in one voice in defense of the Constitution.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Private Calendar be in order tomorrow.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, June 21, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), our distinguished subcommittee chairman of our great Committee on Armed Services, introduced H.R. 256 in remembrance of the brave servicemen who perished in the disastrous April 24, 1980 rescue attempt of the American hostages in Iran. That was called Operation Eagle Claw. I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this legislation to the Floor, mainly because it is such an important resolution, but also, Mr. Speaker, because it prompted me to call an old friend. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to the selfless service of that old friend from my childhood and a true American hero, Air Force Staff Sergeant Joseph J.J. Beyers. I was reminded of my friend JJ because he was part of that rescue attempt, and he was one of the fortunate few who lived to tell about it. I had pretty much lost track of JJ after high school, although I knew, Mr. Speaker, that he was part of that rescue operation and I knew that he had been injured severely, burned severely, in critical condition for months, but that, thank God, he survived, and he recovered. But we had really lost track of each other for these many years until last week, after Mr. Saxton introduced his resolution. I had an opportunity to track JJ down and to give him a call and to spend about 45 minutes talking to him about that operation and his life and what it meant to him and what it has meant to this country. I want to share, Mr. Speaker, a little bit of JJ's life, our life as kids together growing up in North Augusta, South Carolina. We were both altar boys at Our Lady of Peace Catholic Church. JJ and I went to school together from the first grade. Back in those days, Mr. Speaker, there was no pre-K or kindergarten. Everybody just showed up when they were 6 years old in the first grade. That is how long I have known that great American hero. And a little bit later on, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, JJ Beyers and myself actually played in the same pony league baseball organization. He was a great athlete. He was a wonderful baseball player, an all-star in that pony league. We had some great athletes, and I would be remiss if I did not mention one who, like JJ Beyers, is another American hero, our age, our contemporary who gave his life for our country in another conflict, Vietnam. But JJ Beyers and I went on to high school together to St. Thomas Aquinas High School in Augusta, Georgia where again we were both playing baseball and football. But after that, I went off to college. I went to Georgia Tech to college; and JJ joined the Air Force and was in the process of spending his entire adult life in the Air Force. He was a C-130 radio operator and had been assigned to Eglin Air Force Base in 1980, when Operation Eagle Claw was planned. JJ volunteered for that duty, Mr. Speaker, to take the place of someone who had to drop out because of a sick parent. And JJ Beyers at that time was a single parent who had custody of his five children. And yet he stepped up to the plate and volunteered to fill in the gap to go on this dangerous mission, telling his commander at Eglin that his neighbors would take care of his children; that he wanted to go and do what was necessary to rescue these hostages in Iran. That is the kind of guy JJ Beyers is, and this opportunity tonight to share that with my colleagues, I think, is of tremendous importance. Mr. Speaker, JJ, as I say, lived through that infamous collision between a Navy helicopter and that C-130 cargo plane. But he was trapped in that fuselage by raging flames after the crash and pulled to safety by two Delta Force pilots. And JJ has severe burns today and little use of both hands. He has been totally disabled. But here is what he says: ``There is no doubt in my mind everybody involved would have gone again.'' JJ is remarried now. He lives in Niceville, Florida. I just want to say one thing, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion. Something that happened in high school, I was a snapper for punts. I rolled that snap back to JJ Beyers in the biggest game of the year, the punt was blocked. The coach chewed my good friend JJ Beyers out. He never said a word. He took it like a man. I did not own up to the fact that it was my fault. JJ was a true hero then. He was a true hero in 1980, he is a true hero as we speak today, and I want to take this chance to thank him for his friendship and sacrifice.