Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Kentucky, and as well my good friend from Indiana; and it is a pleasure to be with my colleagues tonight to discuss something of such tremendous import to the country. I have done about, Mr. Speaker, 10 listening sessions, town hall meetings on this subject; and it is very, very instructive. If you do them during the daytime, it is typically going to be senior-dominated; and many of those individuals, of course, are among the 43 million who are current Social Security beneficiaries. One thing that we try to make sure that they understand is in any of the plans that are out there, and of course, every plan is a work in progress and nothing is set in stone, but that the concept, first of all, of holding harmless anyone 55 years or older, that their Social Security benefits will not change. Their checks will only change when they get their annual COLA, and they would not, in fact, have the opportunity to invest in an individual personal account, if that is part of the final solution. I do not know, maybe my colleagues have heard this, too. Some of them, in particular at age 55, they are a little disappointed: Why did you cut me out? I do not get full retirement until I am 67 years old because of those changes that occurred under the Reagan administration in 1983, the last time we were in crisis. They are kind of disappointed, particularly if they are planning on working and deferring their benefits until age 70. They would have 15 years of an opportunity to get the miracle of compound interest. But these seniors, and I am sure again that my colleagues are hearing the same thing, they are very concerned. Even when we tell them that they are secure and we promise them this is our pledge, they are concerned about their children and grandchildren; and they are there not so much for themselves, even if their Social Security was at risk, they are very concerned about their children and grandchildren. That kind of renews my sense of faith and spirit in our seniors and in the American way. It is really great to hear that from them.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). I think the Ryan-Sununu plan is one that excites me. There are several others out there, but one thing that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) said that we need to emphasize, he is explaining that if we totally, completely say that an individual personal account, not privatization but as he has explained it, an opportunity to invest a portion, just a portion of that payroll tax in something like a thrift savings plan, if we completely rule that out as our friends on the other side of the aisle have done in both Chambers, drawn a deep line in the sand and said no, not only no, but heck no. But when we say show us your plan, what do they do, they hold up a blank sheet of paper because they do not want to admit what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) just pointed out, alternatives are to raise the payroll tax or to decrease benefits or raise the age at which a person can receive full benefits. Let us say because people are living longer and are healthier, let us say full retirement is 75 and early retirement is age 70, so it is important that people understand. We are not ruling out anything on our side of the aisle. We do not have a plan set in stone, but clearly this option of an individual personal account enjoys, like no other fix, the miracle of compound interest. Einstein, when asked what the greatest power on Earth was, everyone expected him to say atomic energy, but he said the miracle of compound interest. I think the gentleman is on the right track.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman because it is such a good point. The gentleman from Indiana said in his earlier remarks that we have a $10 trillion unfunded liability. That is a big number, but the cost of doing nothing is estimated at $600 billion a year for every year we do nothing and continue to try to avoid the problem, pretend that it does not exist, hope that some other Congress, the 110th, the 112th, whatever, will address that, and we will not have to put our political careers at risk. I have heard others say, and I have said many times in my discussions across my district, that I am more concerned about the next generation than the next election. We do an interesting thing in our listening sessions. We have a video clip. Of course, it is a black and white movie reel going back to 1935 showing a little clip of President Roosevelt signing that initial law, and he said very clearly this is not going to be enough to take care of the average senior's full retirement. I encourage them because of, and he used a term I hardly knew what it meant, I had to look it up in the dictionary, the vicissitudes of life. Things happen, good and bad; and people should prepare by buying an annuity to cover the vicissitudes of life, but unfortunately, people, fully a third of our seniors, cannot afford to invest in an IRA. Maybe they never had an opportunity to participate in one of these employer-sponsored 401(k) benefit plans for retirement, where the employer matches the employee, and they certainly did not have enough money in the paycheck they were earning to buy an annuity. So where the problem is, and we all know it, nobody is disputing this, a third of our seniors get to age 62 or 65, they do not have a job, they do not have any other savings. They only have the Social Security check. So this idea of an individual personal account is not a brand-new idea, and I know my colleagues agree with me on this point. It is not privatization. We are not turning the Social Security trust fund over to Merrill Lynch or Smith Barney and saying, here, go ahead and invest the money and you do this on behalf of the government and its retirees, and if you want to invest in Enron or Global Crossing or WorldCom or something not at all. I think it is just so disingenuous, but we have to spend so much time undoing some of the negative publicity that has been sent out to our seniors to literally scare them, just like the same scare tactics that were used when we were passing the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act. Tear up your AARP card because they supported that; resign from that organization. Even if you are eligible to get $600 a year benefit on your prescription drugs, $1,200 over 2 years, do not accept that Medicare-approved drug discount card. So we are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to overcome that negative publicity, those scare tactics in regard, yes, now with Social Security. It is important and I really commend the gentlewoman from Kentucky for sponsoring this hour, for leading this hour so that we can make sure our colleagues understand that clearly it is time to do something about Social Security, and we cannot afford to put it off to the future.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 236 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected in regard to his amendments, but in regard to a number of these other amendments, let me quote from the committee report on page 84. This is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) speaking. ``This amendment would allow abusers potentially to get off scot-free and doom the victims of sexual abuse to even more abuse. If the girl is afraid to tell her parents of the abortion for fear of past or future sexual abuse, she may utilize the judicial bypass process which is available in her State.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would again emphasize the importance of this bill as a safeguard of parental rights and protection for minors. As I listened to the opposition on the other side, I cannot help but notice how they remain unwilling to honestly address and debate this bill. H.R. 748 is a clear example of consensus legislation upon which most Americans agree. According to a recent poll by the New York Times, almost 80 percent of Americans favor parental notification law, and yet these laws are currently circumvented and violated through the interstate transportation of minors. Allowing our children to be carted across State lines by nonguardians to get an abortion is absolutely immoral and fundamentally wrong. With over 30 States requiring some type of parental notification, Congress cannot turn a blind eye to those who would violate the law and endanger our children. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has an obligation and absolute moral duty to parents and their children alike to make sure that these State laws are upheld so that nonguardians do not make medical decisions for our children. Parents and children deserve better, Mr. Speaker, and this bill will ensure that they get the care and consideration that they need. Again I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen), the sponsor of the bill, and all my colleagues who support this bill. I encourage each and every Member to think long and hard about this matter, to put rhetoric aside and to listen to their conscience. Mr. Speaker, I further ask and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from New York had said that the issue of sexual abuse never came up in the committee hearing. If you look at page 84.

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 myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to address some of the concerns articulated by my colleague on the Committee on Rules. The other side of the aisle has been concerned about how some of the amendments they offered during the Committee on the Judiciary markup have been characterized in the committee report. Mr. Speaker, this is a question of intent versus effect. During the Committee on the Judiciary markup, there were several amendments offered that would have exempted certain individuals from prosecution under this bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they did not intend for sexual predators to be exempt from prosecution. I believe them. I would hope it will never be the intent of anyone in this body to in any way inadvertently or otherwise assist in doing harm to a child to offer protection to those who would. But, Mr. Speaker, this is where the effect of the amendments come to bear. The effect of the amendments would have been to exempt individual classes of people from prosecution. If a case arose where the sexual predator qualified under one of these classes of individuals, that person could not be prosecuted under this bill. This effect is simply unacceptable. The minority side argues that their intent, not the effect, should be the language used in the report submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary. However, it is the responsibility, in fact it is the charged duty, of the Committee on the Judiciary chairman to write and file the report. It is the prerogative of the chairman to write the report as he sees fit. On the other side, the minority has ample opportunity to take up any issue they choose in the dissenting views of the report. In this instance, the dissenting views of the minority are found on pages 121 to 133 of House Report 109-51. If the minority wants their interpretation of the intent or even effect of an amendment to be in the report, it is wholly appropriate for them to articulate those views in their dissenting views. In fact, this is just exactly what they did. So on the one hand, we have the chairman stating his understanding of the effect of these amendments; and on the other hand, we have the minority stating their intent. Both the minority and majority positions are stated clearly in the committee report. It seems to me that both the majority and minority used the committee report to fairly and appropriately state their views. No one was shut out from the opportunity to voice an opinion in this committee report. Mr. Speaker, I believe both sides of the aisle used the committee report to discuss their efforts on this legislation, and we should not cloud the merit of this legislation because the other side does not like how the effect of their amendments was characterized. Mr. Speaker, for further clarification, I would like to yield for as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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, this is a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. 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 the Judiciary now printed in the bill, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment. 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 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; it shall not be subject to an amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for the 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 would like to take this opportunity to recognize and to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her dedication and leadership, not only on this bill, but also on all matters concerning the well-being and defense of our children. She truly has made this fight her own and I would like to applaud her for her hard work. Mr. Speaker, I fear that the opponents of this bill will demagogue it as an assault on a woman's right to choose, but this bill has absolutely nothing, let me repeat, nothing to do with a woman's right to choose. Rather, this bill ensures that no minor is deprived of any protection according to not only her but also her parents under the laws of her State. H.R. 748 is a commonsense bill that will prohibit the transportation of a minor across the State line to obtain an abortion when the child's home State requires parental consent. This bill makes an exception in those extremely rare cases in which the abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the minor. Also, this bill makes another exception allowing for judicial bypass. This bill also affirms the responsibility of a physician prior to performing an abortion on a minor from another State to make sure that they are acting in accordance with the laws of her State. Having practiced as an OB-GYN for nearly 30 years, I am uniquely qualified to discuss the medical and legal obligations of a physician to his or her patient. And this law not only ensures the protection of minors but it also clarifies the responsibility of the physician to make sure that he or she is not inappropriately performing an abortion on a minor without the legally mandated consent of her parents. This bill also affirms the principles of federalism and it prevents the circumvention and violation of laws passed by State legislatures. Over 30 States have passed parental notification laws, Mr. Speaker. In fact, in my home State of Georgia, the legislature just recently passed a new abortion notification law in an overwhelming and bipartisan fashion, and this Congress has the responsibility to defend that federalism and the integrity of State laws in interstate matters. Mr. Speaker, while I can address this issue both as a Member of Congress and as a medical physician who has delivered a lot of precious infants, I can also talk about this issue as a father. My wife and I had four children. Three of them are now grown women and two of them have children of their own. However, I knew that when they were still young children, minors, I not only had a moral obligation that I proudly still bear to this day, but also a legal obligation to defend them and their well-being against any and every potential and imminent danger. Mr. Speaker, this legislation recognizes this fundamental bond between parents and child and it recognizes the obligation of a parent to be involved and to assist in making important decisions affecting both the life and the health of a minor. Children cannot even be given aspirin at school without their parents' permission, so I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly justify that administering an abortion is less traumatic or potentially dangerous than taking an aspirin. Yet, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the opponents of this bill are saying through their opposition to H.R. 748. During this debate, I encourage my colleagues to remain focused on the matter at hand and remember that this legislation seeks to uphold the legislatively guaranteed rights of parents and their minor children. Let us not allow this debate to be bogged down with the same tired rhetoric about a woman's right to choose. I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill for final passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 240, a bill providing for changes to the rules of the House of Representatives related to the procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the ethics committee. Mr. Speaker, it is truly unfortunate the House of Representatives must take up this legislation that rescinds progressive reforms made to the practice of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Mr. Speaker, new rules were agreed upon that would have allowed a bipartisan majority to resolve ethics disputes in an expeditious and judicious fashion. These rules would have ensured that the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct could never be used by either party, Republican or Democrat, as a weapon to malign and tarnish the reputation of any Member in this body for political purposes. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the House Democrats have refused to accept these changes and, thus, have brought the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to a screeching halt. Not only have the House Democrats essentially shut down the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct but they have also used its demise for political gain. Over the past few months, House Democrats have abandoned any substantial discussion of policy like Social Security modernization and resorted to an incessant stream of personal and political attacks upon Members of this body, especially upon one Member in particular. The Democrats do not have a plan to strengthen Social Security for our seniors, but they will spend months upon months stonewalling and refusing to allow the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to function. Mr. Speaker, if the House Democrats actually allowed the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to meet and conduct investigations, then they would lose their ability to exploit tabloid sensationalism and would have to return to doing the work of the American people. So, Mr. Speaker, the House must now consider a return to the old rules. Despite the flaws in the old rules, we in the majority cannot and will not accept a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct held hostage for purposes of political gain. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, the so-called Assault Weapons ban passed in 1994 has now been expired for seven months and our nation has yet to feel the ill effects proponents of the '94 legislation predicted. The following article by Deborah Sontag of the New York Times, provides a great description of how little has changed since the ban was lifted. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert this article into the Congressional Record. [From the New York Times, Apr. 24, 2005] Many Say End of Firearm Ban Changed Little (By Deborah Sontag) Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban last September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several metropolitan police departments. The uneventful expiration of the assault weapons ban did not surprise gun owners, nor did it surprise some advocates of gun control. Rather, it underscored what many of them had said all along: that the ban was porous--so porous that assault weapons remained widely available throughout their prohibition. ``The whole time that the American public thought there was an assault weapons ban, there never really was one,'' said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group. What's more, law enforcement officials say that military- style weapons, which were never used in many gun crimes but did enjoy some vogue in the years before the ban took effect, seem to have gone out of style in criminal circles. ``Back in the early 90's, criminals wanted those Rambo-type weapons they could brandish,'' said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. ``Today they are much happier with a 9-millimeter handgun they can stick in their belt.'' When the ban took effect in 1994, it exempted more than 1.5 million assault weapons already in private hands. Over the next 10 years, at least 1.17 million more assault weapons were produced--legitimately--by manufacturers that availed themselves of loopholes in the law, according to an analysis of firearms production data by the Violence Policy Center. Throughout the decade-long ban, for instance, the gun manufacturer DPMS/Panther Arms of Minnesota continued selling assault rifles to civilians by the tens of thousands. In compliance with the ban, the firearms manufacturer ``sporterized'' the military-style weapons, sawing off bayonet lugs, securing stocks so they were not collapsible and adding muzzle brakes. But the changes did not alter the guns' essence; they were still semiautomatic rifles with pistol grips. After the ban expired in September, DPMS reintroduced its full-featured weapons to the civilian market and enjoyed a slight spike in sales. That increase was short-lived, however, and predictably so, said Randy E. Luth, the company's owner. ``I never thought the sunset of the ban would be that big a deal,'' Mr. Luth said. No gun production data are yet available for the seven months since the ban expired. And some gun-control advocates say they don't trust the self-reporting of gun industry representatives, who may want to play down the volume of their sales to ward off a revival of the ban. Indeed, a replica of the ban is again before the Senate. ``In my view, the assault weapons legislation was working,'' said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, a chief sponsor of the new bill. ``It was drying up supply and driving up prices. The number of those guns used in crimes dropped because they were less available.'' Assault weapons account for a small fraction of gun crimes: about 2 percent, according to most studies, and no more than 8 percent. But they have been used in many high-profile shooting sprees. The snipers in the 2002 Washington-area shootings, for instance, used semiautomatic assault rifles that were copycat versions of banned carbines. Gun crime has plummeted since the early 1990's. But a study for the National Institute of Justice said that it could not ``clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drops in gun violence.'' Research for the study in several cities did show a significant decline in the criminal use of assault weapons during the ban. According to the study, however, that decline was offset by the ``steady or rising use'' of other guns equipped with high-capacity magazines--ammunition-feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds. While the 1994 ban prohibited the manufacture and sale of such magazines, it did not outlaw an estimated 25 million of them already in circulation, nor did it stop the importation of millions more into the country. Senator Feinstein said she wished she could outlaw the ``flood of big clips'' from abroad, calling that the ``one big loophole'' in the ban. But that would require amending the bill, and Republicans like Senator John W. Warner of Virginia and Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio are willing to back it only without amendments, she said. Some gun-control advocates say it is pointless to reintroduce the 1994 ban without amending it to include large magazines and a wider range of guns. They see more promise in enacting or strengthening state or local bans. Seven states-- California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey and New York--already have bans, most based on the federal one. The model ban, gun-control advocates say, is a comprehensive one in California (referred to as ``Commiefornia'' on some gun enthusiast Web sites). The Fraternal Order of Police has not made a new federal ban a legislative priority, either. Mr. Pasco, the organization's director, said he could not recall a single ``inquiry from the field about the reauthorization of the ban--and we have 330,000 members who are very vocal.'' ``In 1994, I was the principal administration lobbyist on this ban,'' said Mr. Pasco, who then worked for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. ``But here we are 10 years later, and these weapons do not appear to pose any more significant threat to law enforcement officers than other weapons of similar caliber and capability.'' The ban made it illegal to possess or sell a semiautomatic weapon manufactured after September 1994 if the weapon accepted a detachable magazine and contained at least two features from a list that included protruding pistol grips and threaded muzzles. The ban outlawed 19 weapons by name, among them some foreign semiautomatics already banned under the 1989 firearms importation law, which still stands. But gun manufacturers increased production of assault weapons while the ban was being debated. Then, by making minor changes in design, they were able to produce, as they called them, ``post-ban'' assault weapons that were the functional equivalent of the originals. Colt came out with a ``sporterized'' version of its popular AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, leaving off some military features that were ``meaningless as far as its lethality,'' said Carlton S. Chen, vice president and general counsel for Colt. ``People might think it looks less evil,'' Mr. Chen said, ``but it's the same weapon. It was a hoax, a Congressional hoax, to ban all these different features.'' Mr. Pasco of the police organization disagreed. ``We knew exactly what we were doing by trying to ban guns with certain features,'' he said. ``While it didn't affect their function or capability, those features, at that point in time, seemed to make those weapons more attractive to those who wanted to commit crimes.'' Gun-control advocates say military-style semiautomatics do not belong in civilian hands. ``They are weapons of war,'' Senator Feinstein said, ``and you don't need these assault weapons to hunt.'' Gun makers, however, say the weapons do have sporting uses, in hunting and in target shooting. ``People buy these rifles because they're fun to shoot and they perform well,'' Mr. Luth of DPMS said. ``They also like them because you can jazz them up like you can your car. You can custom-paint them, put on a multitude of handguards or buttstocks.'' Some collectors simply admire certain guns. Charles Cuzalina, a gun dealer in Oklahoma who specializes in banned weapons, is taken with the Colt AR-15. ``I just like the look of the weapon,'' Mr. Cuzalina said. ``When I bought my first, I went out on the farm shooting at a pie plate, and I realized how accurate it makes you. You think you're the world's best shot.'' Mark Westrom, owner of ArmaLite Inc., a gun maker in Illinois, said prey hunters and target shooters did not miss bayonet lugs and other features that disappeared with the post-ban rifles. Collectors looking for an exact civilian replica of a military rifle, however, consider the removal of a bayonet lug ``a matter of design defacement,'' Mr. Westrom said. Several manufacturers are offering factory conversions or selling kits so gun owners can retrofit their post-ban weapons. They are also increasing their production of pre-ban weapons and decreasing production of post-ban weapons. Many gun store owners say that sales of assault weapons spiked briefly in September and October. Gun dealers sought to capitalize on the ban's sunset and, during the presidential campaign, to raise the specter of a tougher ban if John Kerry won. ``We view this time as a `pause' and urge you to take advantage of the opportunity to exercise your Second Amendment rights,'' Tapco, a shooting and military gear company, said on its Web site last fall. ``Anti-gun politicians learned much over the past 10 years. They will surely not leave as many loopholes in future legislation.'' After President Bush was re-elected and the novelty of the ban's expiration waned, sales leveled off at many gun shops. But Mike Mathews, the owner of Gunworld in Del City, Okla., said sales had been holding steady at a higher level. Norm Giguere of Norm's Gun & Ammo in Biddeford, Me., on the other hand, said that he had not sold any military-style semiautomatic rifles since right after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and that the gun business in general was ``going down the tubes.'' Mr. Luth of DPMS, however, said that his sales had been increasing for years, to the law enforcement community, the civilian market and an unexpected new clientele. ``We've picked up new customers with the troops returning from Iraq,'' he said, ``who had never shot an AR-15 before and now want one.'' The war in Iraq has had another unintended consequence for the marketplace. Colt, one of the biggest manufacturers, has decided against putting its AR-15 back on the civilian market because the company is backlogged with military orders. Unlike assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, which are used with many guns, have been selling briskly since the ban ended because prices have dropped considerably. ``The only thing Clinton ever did for us was drive up the price of magazines,'' said a weapons specialist named Stuart at TargetMaster, a shooting range and gun shop in Garland, Tex. (He declined to give his last name.) ``A 17-round Glock magazine crept up to $150 during the ban. It's $75 now.'' Since September, the Web site of Taurus International Manufacturing Inc., a major maker of small arms, has celebrated the demise of the prohibition on magazines, flashing in red letters, ``10 years of 10 rounds are over!''

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak in the place of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Now, do not ask me to spell that for you. But, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. What the gentleman from Texas, both the gentlemen from Texas, I should say, are absolutely right. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) earlier was talking about the number of physicians, that before this good legislation was passed by the great State of Texas, it was 600 or so. And it is really, as I have said this many times, it is not just that the physician loses his or her livelihood that they have worked most of their adult life to establish. But it is a jobs situation, because every time a medical office closes because of the burdensome expense of malpractice insurance, you are talking about putting maybe 15, 25, possibly as many as 50 employees of that medical practice, Mr. Speaker. That is how many were employed in my practice as an OB-GYN in Georgia. And I really commend Texas in regard to their legislation. I think it was a model, Mr. Speaker, for my State of Georgia in the general assembly, and the State of Georgia this year did pass reform legislation very similar to the Texas bill. And I think that they have now got a couple of years' experience, so hopefully that same thing will occur in the State of Georgia. So I really appreciate the gentleman yielding and giving me an opportunity to weigh in on this.

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman will yield, I do. And the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), the good judge, is kind to yield to me. I actually came to the well for another purpose, but since you asked me my opinion on this, I will be glad to opine. By the way, that piercing of the abdomen to get the fluid, that is called amniocentesis.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise President Bush's ongoing efforts to carry democracy and freedom to the farthest corners of the Middle East. Like some of my colleagues, I have had the opportunity recently to travel to this part of the world, to Iraq, to Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Cypress and Israel. These experiences left me extremely encouraged about the prospect of freedom in the Middle East. I believe we are witnessing a crucial moment in world history as democracy is planting roots in countries previously overrun by terrorists and tyrants. The most visible instance of this is in Iraq. Four short months ago, Iraqi citizens braved terrorist threats and bodily harm to turn out at the polls in amazing numbers. Today, the fruits of their labor are evident, and the Iraqi people can finally look forward to a future in a free and a democratic society. They have a government that serves as a voice for all Iraqis, be they Kurdish, Sunni, Shiite, Christian, or any of the many other ethnic and religious groups represented in the new government. Like the Iraqi people, citizens of Afghanistan are also enjoying new- found freedoms. Our United States Armed Forces have liberated millions of Afghans, paving the way for a democratic Afghani government, one that is committed to fighting terrorism on its own. But Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only nations where freedom is marching, Mr. Speaker. The roots of democracy grow wide, and they have begun their spread into Iran, Syria, Palestine, Libya, and perhaps even Saudi Arabia. The list of democratic accomplishments in the region is growing, suggesting that a true change in outlook and culture is occurring in the Middle East. Syria has begun pulling its troops out of Lebanon. Israel is working with the Palestinian people to pull troops and settlers out of Gaza, and the post-Arafat PLO is increasingly willing to put this kind of diplomacy over terrorism. Libya has begun the voluntary dismantling of its nuclear program, and Egypt has agreed to allow multi-candidate elections. Any one of these accomplishments alone would be reason to rejoice; but taken together, they signal an ever-growing, irrevocable force for change across the globe. What we are accomplishing in the Middle East is far more than winning the war on terror. We are winning the war of ideas. People around the globe are crying out for freedom. Democracy, representation, the opportunity to disagree, these are all essential developments that foster freedom; and we are seeing them spread across the Middle East. People are choosing democracy over dictators and demagogues, and I am extremely encouraged by these developments. Mr. Speaker, the naysayers among us, those who said fair democratic elections in Iraq would never occur, who said this region would never accept democracy, they have been proven wrong. Freedom is a universal ideal, one that knows no boundaries or borders. As President Bush so often reminds us, freedom truly is on the march.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of strengthening Social Security through ownership and saving. Right now, we have an opportunity to let Americans own a piece of their retirement savings by strengthening Social Security through voluntary personal accounts. Most Americans might be surprised to know that their Social Security isn't very secure at all. As the system stands today, your Social Security check is controlled by Congress. And when you die, your benefits are taken away, regardless of how long or how much you've paid into the system. That's a bum deal for Americans. If instead, we let younger workers create voluntary personal retirement accounts with a small portion of their Social Security money, more Americans could build a nest egg that the government could never ever take away. These savings could be passed on to future generations. Mr. Speaker, voluntary personal accounts will help low- and middle- income Americans accumulate wealth and save for their future. I ask for your support.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman will recall, as the chairman led this delegation, as he just mentioned, in Brussels, that opportunity to meet with the European commission and the EU, as well as visit NATO, which was a very good experience, but we took an opportunity to let the European Union know, as the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) pointed out, how strongly we do feel about being in opposition to them lifting that arms embargo, particularly in light of the fact that in just a very recent session of their people's Congress, they voted unanimously an anti-secession law which basically says that it is illegal for the Republic of China, Taiwan as we know it, to leave their country and they are still part of the mainland, according to this law. So we wanted to make sure, and I think the chairman did an excellent job in his one-on-one discussion with several leading members of the European commission, of how important it was to us for stability in that region, for stability in the Middle East. I mean, I think that was, of all of the diplomatic things that we were able to accomplish, and there were many on this 10-day trip, but I thought that was real significant.