Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the vital work that takes place at Guantanamo Bay. To say, as a member of the Senate Democratic leadership recently did, that this base is similar to Nazi Germany or Pol Pot is not only deeply offensive but also wholly incorrect. Mr. Speaker, I visited Guantanamo twice with the House Committee on Armed Services. Let me tell you what I observed there: new and up-to- date facility that allows for the humane treatment of prisoners; prisoners being treated with dignity and in accordance with the Geneva Convention; detainees freely practicing their religious observances. Mr. Speaker, the overwhelming majority of American troops are performing with honor. When someone throws around offensive slurs for the purpose of political posturing, they jeopardize the very safety of the men and women who protect us and add resolve to those terrorists who wish us harm. These slurs are a horrific disservice to the American people who are counting on us to stop terrorism from once again rearing its ugly head within our borders.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in response to a number of the points that my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), just made so eloquently. He asked me a little while ago about the incidences that had occurred, the 119 since 1994, and how many of those were burnings in contrast to how many might be other forms of desecration. I did not have that information for him at the moment, but I do now, and I want to share that with him; 75 of those actually were burnings. I want to anecdotally mention one of those 75. In April 18, 2005, this occurred in Topeka, Kansas, this burning. Fire and police investigators looked into a case of arson in which flags were burned at the Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library. Someone came into the library grounds between 12:21 a.m. and 1:15 a.m. They lowered the library's flags and they burned them near the building. Now, it was not illegal then and now to burn your own flag. It was illegal to burn someone else's. But that is the point that I wanted to make; that in fact 75 of 119 were burnings. Furthermore, I want to also mention that the word ``desecration'' in this constitutional amendment resolution was selected because of its broad nature in encompassing many actions against the flag. Such broad terms are commonly used in constitutional amendments. For example, free exercise in the first amendment; unreasonable searches and seizures, probable cause, in the fourth amendment; due process and equal protection in the 14th. Thus, it is essential that we continue to use broad terms in constitutional amendments such as the word ``desecration'' in order to give Congress discretion when it moves to enact implementing legislation. Debate and discussion as to what forms of desecration should be outlawed, such as burning, will come at a later date in Congress. Also, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) was talking about in regard to his own amendment. The Supreme Court decision in 2003, Virginia v. Black, held that ``a ban on cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate is proscribable under the first amendment,'' allowable under the first amendment. So it is really unnecessary to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit cross burnings, since statutes prohibiting cross burnings with the intent to harm are currently enforceable. In contrast, the Supreme Court has concluded in Texas v. Johnson in 1989 that, 5 to 4 decision, that flag desecration is protected by the first amendment, leaving a constitutional amendment as the only remaining option to protect the flag, since statutes doing so in 50 States, 48 States before 1989, are currently unenforceable. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers at this time. I plan to reserve the balance of my time, but I will be happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) in the interest of continuation of this colloquy.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time our side has remaining?

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, that was my mistake. I intended to yield that time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) rather than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). I apologize for that mistake.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for introducing this legislation and to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for being steadfast and persistent in trying to bring resolution to the issue of flag desecration. On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress approved the stars and stripes design as the official flag of the United States in order to designate and protect our ships from friendly fire at sea. Since 1994, 119 incidents of flag desecration, and yes, 75 of those were flag burnings, have been reported in the United States and its territories. A constitutional amendment will send a strong message of respect for our country and what it represents. Every Memorial Day, civic groups volunteer their time placing flags on the graves of our fallen soldiers. It was said earlier on Flag Day, June 14, that very few of our citizens took their liberty to display their personal flags. It is regrettable. It is regrettable that on Memorial Day, instead of honoring our fallen, our KIAs in this great country, people, many people, most people, in fact, just use it as a long weekend, another day, a holiday, not really remembering. But, of course, we do not throw out Memorial Day just because our citizens are not paying the proper respect. Whenever a soldier or a government leader dies, a flag is given to his or her family in honor of their service to our country. Our flag means something to these civic groups, these family members, our veterans, our soldiers, and all Americans. Every day men and women selflessly give of themselves to protect our country and our liberties, and they do not deserve to be dishonored, just as our firefighters and our policemen in the great City of New York gave of themselves on that fateful day of 9/11. During our war against terrorism, we need to send a strong message to the enemies of America and the enemies of freedom by protecting the symbol and values of our Nation. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this rule, to oppose the Watt substitution, and pass the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GINGREY. In response to the gentleman, no, I do not know.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, if the gentleman will yield, since the Supreme Court decision, in response to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), since 1994 it is my understanding that there have been at least 119 reports of incidents involving flag desecration. The Supreme Court ruling, that 5 to 4 decision that allowed flag desecration, flag burning as part of free speech, that was 1989. Since 1994, to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my understanding is 119 incidents.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (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 330 is a structured rule, and it provides 2 hours of debate in the House, 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 joint resolution. It makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered, by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) or his designee, which shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided between the proponent and an opponent. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report, provides that notwithstanding the ordering of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the joint resolution to a time designated by the Speaker, and it allows one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, in 1989, the United States Supreme Court Texas v. Johnson decision nullified the laws of 48 States banning flag desecration. Today, all 50 States have passed resolutions requesting Congress to approve a Constitution amendment for ratification that would ban flag burning. The House of Representatives has passed the same, if not similar, legislation for five consecutive Congresses. In the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives passed a proposed amendment with the necessary two-thirds majority by a vote of 312 to 120; while the 105th House passed it 310 to 114, the 106th House passed it 305 to 124, the 107th House passed it 298 to 125, and in the last Congress, the 108th, the House passed it by a vote of 300 to 125. Our flag, with 50 stars and 13 stripes, represents the history, culture, and ideology of democracy for the world. Millions of Americans throughout our Nation's history died defending our flag and the ideals it represents. To burn a flag is to disrespect America and disrespect democracy. For our enemies, those who embrace terrorism, communism, and totalitarianism, burning the American flag is a sign of defiance, because freedom threatens the existence of tyranny. For our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, our flag is motivation to keep fighting, to move ahead, and reason to liberate a people from fear of oppression, as it has been in every conflict in which our Nation has fought. For our veterans, the desecration of the flag is a slight for everything they fought for. And it serves to dishonor their friends and fellow soldiers who gave their lives for our country. To the parts of Europe occupied by the allied powers during World War II, the sight of our flag brought tears of joy because it symbolizes an end to atrocity and oppression and the return of freedom. A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration is not the end of our first amendment liberties. The Constitution was drafted as a living document that is capable of changing when called for by the overwhelming desire of the American people. The debate to end flag desecration is an important issue that carries the overwhelming public support needed to pass an amendment to our Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of our government, and modifying it should not be taken lightly. However, the American citizens have consistently spoken in favor of this amendment for more than 10 years, and it is an issue that is more than 3 decades old. Our laws provide an opportunity for every citizen to express their opinions freely. If someone does not like the policies of our Nation, the party in power, our military, or even a specific law, they have the ability to protest, to voice concerns, write letters to their Congressmen without the consequences of death or imprisonment. This freedom is not found in all nations. The desecration of the American flag, however, is not a form of free speech. It is a challenge to the institution that defends liberty. Although some may disagree, the United States is not the root of the world's problems; rather, we have provided relief from subjugation and freedom to many nations. For those liberated by America and those who cherish freedom, our flag represents more than a Nation, government, or people. It is an emblem of liberty and justice. Our flag deserves to be respected and protected because it is more than just star-studded fabric; it is the symbol of democracy. With that in mind, I request unanimous support of this rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2863, the Department of Defense authorization bill. As we continue assessing our national defense strategy to guard our Nation from threats at home and abroad, we must provide the necessary funding for our military needs to keep us safe. We in Congress often praise our service men and women for the fine job they do, but lipservice is not enough. We must back up our words with action. The 2006 defense appropriation bill does just that. Mr. Speaker, $366 billion for our military will go to procure vital weapons systems, to further research, to develop new technologies, and to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also includes a 3.1-percent pay raise for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Mr. Speaker, we have the most dominant military in the history of the world, and this bill will keep it that way. With this funding, we are giving our defenders the tools they need to keep us safe.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for the fiscal year 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act and the underlying legislation. I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Ranking Member Murtha) and the staff of the Subcommittee on Defense for their tireless efforts in support of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are bravely defending us at home and abroad. Mr. Speaker, the bill does a remarkable job of covering a wide scope of issues that are vitally important to our armed services, both Active and Reserve components, and it clearly meets the immediate needs of the warfighter. I am particularly grateful for the work the Committee on Appropriations has done to fund the FA-22 program this year. The funding for 25 planes will go a long way towards providing stability for that program and assuring that America does maintain air dominance for the foreseeable future. I also wholeheartedly agree with the committee's assessment that the Department of Defense should look into the future needs for the FA-22 fighter and consider both a multiyear contract and extending the procurement life of the program beyond fiscal year 2009. I am especially appreciative for the hard work of the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) in restoring the multiyear contract for the procurement of C- 130Js. This is an absolutely vital program, Mr. Speaker, for our military's current and future airlift capability, and I and our Nation are grateful for their strong support. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee for their hard work on this bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Committee on Rules for yielding me this 1 minute. I grew up in the Deep South in the late 1950s. Every other billboard in the South, in my part of Georgia, said, ``Get out of the United Nations.'' I did not think that was correct then, and I do not feel that way now. In fact, maybe we should have joined the League of Nations and we would never have had World War II. But if there is ever a time to reform an organization, it is absolutely now. I am proud to support the rule and the bill, H.R. 2745, the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005. The gentleman from California earlier talked about the Ten Commandments and the fact that we are burdening the U.N. with these 39 commandments. But really what he is suggesting is that they are not commandments at all. They become suggestions. It does not really matter, the number. I think we need some teeth in this reform, and that is what the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act does. I am fully supportive. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this, and let us straighten out that organization.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about men's health and the importance of screening and preventive care. This week is National Men's Health Week, and there is no better way to observe it than to encourage men across America to take control of their health. Mr. Speaker, it is disturbing to learn that women are 100 percent more likely to visit a doctor for preventive screenings than men. This puts our friends, husbands, fathers, and grandfathers at risk for a host of preventable and manageable diseases from colon cancer to diabetes. In honor of Men's Health Week, I encourage all men to get the care they need. Modern medicine has provided us with previously unimaginable ways to protect and prevent illness, and we should use them to their fullest. I encourage men to ask their doctors which screenings and tests should be part of their health care plan. From cardio evaluation to detect heart disease, to colonoscopies to check for colorectal cancer, to digital prostate exams and PSA blood tests, men should take their health seriously.

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that this bill does provide $2.6 billion for assistance to State and local law enforcement for crime-fighting initiatives, and that is actually $1 billion above the President's request, in response to the gentlewoman's remarks about the Obey amendment. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules could not waive points of order against the gentleman's amendment. While the intent of his amendment is admirable, the means of his amendment does not comply with the rules of the House. The amendment would seek to offset an increase in funding for States and local law enforcement through a tax increase; and such changes in tax policy, as we know, are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Therefore, the amendment, as written, was not germane to H.R. 2862 and subject to a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 314 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2006. The rule allows for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. It waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill. Except as specified in the resolution, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, it provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2862 funds our Nation's priorities without swelling our Federal budget. It is a bill of fiscal restraint, yet one that increases funding to some of our most important weapons in the fight on terror and crime, including the FBI, the DEA, and State and local law enforcement agencies. As we continue to reassess our security and law enforcement priorities to meet threats abroad and at home, we must provide funding for programs that protect our communities. This bill accomplishes that goal. Under H.R. 2862, funding for the Department of Justice will increase to almost $57.5 billion, with much of that additional money going to the agencies that are helping us fight the war on terror, the war on drugs and the war against gang violence. The Federal Bureau of Investigation will see an increase of $542 million above the fiscal year 2005 level. The additional funding will go toward enhanced agent training and the hiring of additional analysts and translators to keep the FBI on the cutting edge of the war on terror. Increased funding means greater information technology, better counterintelligence capabilities and improved efforts to fight white- collar and gang crime. The United States Marshals will see an increased funding of $41 million over last year, while the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, will have $67 million additional to assist State and local law enforcement officials. H.R. 2862 also funds important prevention programs for violence against women, gang crime, and juvenile delinquency. All of this adds up to better protection for our communities. This is the kind of fundamental support that Americans rely on Congress to pass. These are true national priorities, not frivolous programs tailored to special interests. This is legislation that deserves our support. H.R. 2862 also funds our science agencies and provides for a vision of space exploration that has fascinated minds, both young and old, for generations, and provided many breakthrough technologies. Mr. Speaker, I personally hope we will continue to prioritize science funding to ensure that our Nation remains at the forefront of scientific research and development into the future. Through State Department funding, we have earmarked $1.5 billion to continue worldwide security improvements and the replacement of vulnerable United States embassies around the world. Finally, and this is a very important point, H.R. 2862 provides $590 million for the Small Business Administration, and it supports a record level of business loans to help entrepreneurs across our great Nation access capital to start a small business. So much of our U.S. economy, of course, is driven, as we know, by small businesses. As we begin the debate on this rule and the underlying appropriations bill, let us keep two things in mind: one, we must hold fast to our spending limits. To quote President Bush, ``The American people deserve to have their tax dollars spent wisely or not at all.'' Second, we must commit wholly and without reserve to funding our Nation's security and law enforcement priorities. Protecting our citizens from harm is the utmost duty of this Congress and our government. This protection stems from Federal agencies that stop gang violence, crack down on drug trafficking, and give counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts the full support that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 314 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GINGREY. Certainly.

Mr. GINGREY. The committee has provided a number of waivers. I am just not sure what that number is.

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that was not part of my opening statement. You may be correct, but I am not sure of that number.

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