Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Absolutely. I will finish that quote: ``He, Saddam, had already conducted extensive terrorism activities and Bush looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and he, President Bush, looked the other way. ``Well, in my view the Bush administration was acting in a manner directly opposite to what you would expect with all of the evidence that it had available at the time. Saddam Hussein's nature and intentions were perfectly visible.'' Again, a major policy speech made by then Senator and Vice Presidential candidate Al Gore, September 29, 1992.

Mr. GINGREY. The Senator running for Vice President.

Mr. GINGREY. Just listen to former, actually Senator Gore at the time and former Vice President Gore in a speech, a major policy speech made on September 29, 1992 by then Senator Al Gore, and I quote: ``He, Saddam, had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly and Bush''--referring to Bush I--``looked the other way.''

Mr. GINGREY. Here are another couple of quotes. Again, President Clinton: ``We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.'' President Clinton again: ``We have learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination and, when necessary, action.''

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, continuing on the line of reason the gentleman from Michigan is presenting, again Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1998, in fact, November 23, and this was in Time Magazine: ``Up to now we've had diplomacy backed by force. Now we need to shift to force backed by diplomacy.'' And listen to what she says less than a month later: ``Month after month we have given Iraq chance after chance to move from confrontation to cooperation, and we have explored and exhausted every diplomatic action. We will see now whether force can persuade Iraq's misguided leaders to reverse course and to accept at long last the need to abide by the rule of law and the will of the world.'' These were remarks made by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on the night of the air strikes, the very limited air strikes, against strategic targets in Iraq, her comments made December 16, 1998. What happened over the next 2 years? Nothing. These limited air strikes did nothing, and Saddam continued with his weapons of mass destruction, his terrorism on his own people, his refusal to let the weapons inspectors come back into the country and make sure he was complying with the U.N. resolutions.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Michigan will allow me, I would just like to shift a little bit now and talk about the testimony and put it in the right, proper context that we are hearing from David Kay.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the anti- regime opposition, both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safe haven and to support various terrorist groups. Many press reports stated that according to a defecting Iraqi intelligence agent, the Iraqi Intelligence Service had planned to bomb the offices of Radio Free Europe in Prague. Radio Free Europe offices include Radio Liberty, which began broadcasting news and information to Iraq in October of 1998. The plot was foiled when it became public in early 1999. The Iraq opposition publicly stated its fears that the Baghdad regime was planning to assassinate those opposed to Saddam Hussein. A spokesman for the Iraqi National Accord in November said that the movement security organs had obtained information about a plan to assassinate its secretary general, Dr. Allawi, and a member of the movement's political bureau, as well as other Iraqi leaders. Iraq continued to provide safe haven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal Organization; the Arab Liberation Front, ALF; and the former head of the now defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of United States aircraft. Iraq provided bases, weapons and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, deputy chief of Iran's Joint Staff, who was actually killed in an assassination attack.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002, that is what they did. Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Service, IIS, laid the groundwork for possible attacks against both civilian and military targets in the United States and other Western countries. The IIS reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to obtain information about United States and Israeli targets. The IIS also threatened dissidents in the Near East and Europe and stole records and computer files detailing anti-regime activity. In December of 2002, the press claimed Iraq intelligence killed Walid Ibrahim Abbas al-Muhah al-Mayahi, a Shi'ite Iraqi refugee who was living in Lebanon and a member of the Iraqi National Congress. Iraq was a safe haven, a transit point and an operational base for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other countries. Baghdad overtly assisted two categories of Iraqi-based terrorist organizations, Iranian dissidents devoted to toppling the Iranian Government and a variety of Palestinian groups opposed to peace with Israel. The groups include the Iranian Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Abu Nidal Organization, although Iraq reportedly killed its leader. The Palestinian Liberation Front, PLF, and the Arab Liberation Front, ALF. In the past year, the PLF increased its operational activities against Israel and sent its members to Iraq for training for future terrorist attacks. Baghdad provided material assistance to other Palestinian terrorist groups that are in the forefront of this intifadah. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, Hamas, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad are the three most important groups to which Baghdad has extended outreach and support efforts. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to encourage Palestinian terrorism, channeling $25,000 since March through the ALF alone to families of suicide bombers, both in Gaza and on the West Bank. Public testimonials by Palestinian civilians and officials and cancelled checks captured by Israel in the West Bank verify the transfer of a considerable amount of Iraqi money. The presence of several hundred al Qaeda operatives fighting with the small Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al Islam in the northeastern corner of Iraqi Kurdistan where the IIS operates is well documented. Iraq has an agent in the most senior levels of Ansar al Islam as well. In addition, small numbers of highly placed al Qaeda militants were present in Baghdad and areas of Iraq that Saddam controls. It is inconceivable that these groups were in Iraq without the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime. In the past year, al Qaeda operatives in Northern Iraq concocted suspect chemicals under the direction of senior al Qaeda associate Abu Mussab Zarqawi; and they tried to smuggle them into Russia, Western Europe, and the United States for terrorist organizations and operations. Iraq is a party to five of the 12 international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism. That is what Iraq has been doing in the year 2002.

Mr. GINGREY. I think what the gentleman so clearly pointed out is the previous administration made the case against Saddam Hussein. They made the case based on the intelligence that they were receiving at that time. What they did is they talked the talk, and we have spent some time here this evening giving you some quotes, various members, including the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State.

Mr. GINGREY. Absolutely. The point I was going to make is they were willing, the previous administration, to talk the talk; but what they were not willing to do was to walk the walk. This administration has walked the walk; and because of that, this world is a safer place with the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman will yield further, one of the most preposterous facts is that during of the previous administration in the late 1990s, Osama bin Laden was offered up to our country, and we refused to accept him saying that he was not that much of a threat. We did not need him.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. No question, when we keep drawing lines in the sand and making threats and dares and double dares, as was done by the previous administration, attack after attack after attack, the other side is rightly going to assume that you are just so much bluster, that you are no threat. So they continue in their terroristic ways, and that really is essentially what has happened. Thank God that this President, our 43rd President, George W. Bush, had the courage to finally say, enough is enough.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, no question. And of course it reminds me, thinking back, of I think it was the Clinton administration had decided that they wanted to have a nicer, a nicer, kinder, gentler intelligence agency; and anybody that was ever known to have jaywalked or spit on the sidewalk, they were not eligible to be an intelligence officer because they did not project that image. I am going to tell my colleagues right now, it is clear that when the going gets tough, the tough get going; and we need tough people. And as the gentleman from Michigan was saying, we cut down on the number of personnel involved in intelligence operations and the kind of people that we need to deal with these people on an international basis. This is dangerous work, and we need tough, dangerous people to fight fire with fire. We did not have that in the previous administration.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in regard to that, I just wanted to point out, and I started to mention this a little bit earlier, that Dr. Kay was a consultant to the Iraqi Survey Group. The Iraqi Survey Group is 1,300 individuals in Iraq continuing, as we speak tonight, continuing to look for weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi Survey Group is not led by consultant Dr. David Kay; the Iraqi Survey Group is commanded by Lieutenant General Keith Dayton. Dr. Kay worked for General Dayton as a consultant, and General Dayton told a group of us when we were in Iraq over the Christmas season that Dr. Kay had been out of Iraq for over a month, and I do not think that Dr. Kay has been back in Iraq since that time. So it is very possible that he does not actually know what the Iraqi Survey Group is doing and what they are finding right now. I will tell my colleagues one thing that they are finding. We talk about weapons of mass destruction. If we want to very narrowly define that as chemical weapons or nerve gas or biological anthrax, that is one definition of weapons of mass destruction. But I am going to tell my colleagues, the ultimate weapon of mass destruction was found in Iraq; and he was in a little hole just south of Tikrit, and we got rid of him. And in the process of looking for these other weapons of mass destruction, what have we found? Hundreds, literally hundreds of mass graves with thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, his own people that Saddam had gassed, and also untold numbers of caches of weapons of conventional destruction. My colleagues tell me one of these road-side devices is not a weapon of mass destruction or a shoulder-mounted SA-7 rocket from Russia or a grenade launcher? Absolutely. We are finding and destroying as we continue to seek, and I truly believe that we will find those chemical and biological weapons.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, this is a comment, speaking of Dr. Kay's report, here is what Dr. Kay says, among many things that Dr. Kay is saying. There is something to link them, Saddam, to weapons of mass destruction, and that is the equipment. The equipment was on the prohibited list that had to be declared. The fact that they did not declare the equipment, not only did they not declare it, it was imported equipment. A lot of it we dated was imported from after 1998 in spite of U.N. sanctions. He went on to say, another quote from Dr. Kay: ``We tend to, when we analyze a failure, look at our own failures and forget there is another side to the equation.'' Again, this is Dr. Kay: ``I am convinced the Iraqis tried to deceive us and, in part, they tried to deceive us and others into believing that they really did have those weapons.''

Mr. GINGREY. He went on to say, and again this is part of the Dr. Kay's report, ``The surprising thing we have found in the biological program is a vast network of laboratories. It is now over two dozen labs that were not declared to the U.N. even though they had equipment and were clearly conducting activities that were declarable. Now, quite frankly, we are not sure fully what they were doing right now. They had biological and chemical production equipment in them. Most of them are relatively small by historic Iraqi standards. They are mostly in houses and residential areas. Some are in business establishments. One was in a hospital. These are facilities that at the minimum carried out research and development and kept the scientific skill level.'' When you think about the fact that it took us months and months to find Saddam in the country, a country the size of California, buried in a six-by-three-foot hole south of Tikrit, and probably would not have found him without accurate, absolutely, the most accurate human intelligence, I do not think it is surprising that we are having difficulty finding these weapons of mass destruction. There are any number of things that he could have done with them, from shipping them out of the country, to destroying them, to burying them, to putting them in very small vials. It does not take a footlocker to store some of these weapons of mass destruction. They are easily hidden. So we need to keep looking, absolutely. The Iraqi Survey Group under General Dayton will continue that search.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes, certainly I do. Here is one, and I quote, from President Clinton: ``Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave a lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.'' Another quote, again from President Clinton: ``And someday, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal, and I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.''

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that I am sure there were no Eagle Scouts. When we are dealing with an international terrorist, a brutal, rogue dictator like Saddam Hussein and the terrorists associated with him, the only thing they understand is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. And it is like our military leaders have said many times in testifying before Congress, before committees, before the Committee on Armed Services, if the die-hards insist, they are going to die hard, and we have given it to them. I commend the President for that, and I think this world is a safer place because of it. It is not over, and we do not need to be thinking about an exit strategy until it is over. Our men and women deserve better than that. Many of them have paid the ultimate sacrifice, and they deserve a victory, and we shall have a victory.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, we have heard since the passage of the Prescription Drug and Medicare Modernization Act that this law is a Republican giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. Why, or maybe more importantly, who is telling American seniors this important legislation is bad for them but good for the drug companies? In this election year, it seems that some individuals are using disingenuous political rhetoric to scare our seniors. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss one provision in the bill that is called out as the ``drug company giveaway.'' There is a clause in the legislation that directly states, ``Noninterference. In order to promote competition under this part and in carrying out this part, the Secretary may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and prescription drug plan sponsors; and may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered drugs under part D.'' Simple enough, right? The government cannot interfere with negotiations between private entities and cannot set price controls. The marketplace, free enterprise, will set the price of prescription drugs and do a much better job of driving down prices than some government bureaucrat. Mr. Speaker, this is not a new idea. This language has been used in the same context before by one of the prescription drug bill's biggest detractors. This may come as a surprise to many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but it is probably an even bigger surprise to the American people who are listening to the rhetoric from the opponents of the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act. Let me quote a section from a prescription drug bill introduced in the Senate by the minority leader, Tom Daschle. Mr. Daschle's bill reads: ``Noninterference. In administering the prescription drug benefit established under this part, the Secretary may not require a particular formulary or initiate a price structure for benefits; may not interfere in any way with negotiations between private entities and drug manufacturers or wholesalers; or otherwise interfere with the competitive nature of providing a prescription drug benefit through private entities.'' Democrats have been blasting the ban on negotiations as a giveaway to the drug industry. Yet their Senate minority leader included in his own bill a provision with the exact same effect as the non-negotiation provision found in H.R. 1. It seems to me that the minority leader and the Democrats are not being straight with America's seniors. On the one hand, the Senate minority leader says a non-negotiation clause is a Republican-led, taxpayer giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry; and on the other hand, he includes the very same provision in his own prescription drug bill. Plain as day, in black and white. It can be no clearer. As a side note, Mr. Speaker, just in case my colleagues were wondering, the non-negotiation language also appeared in legislation introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), Democratic Representatives, in 2000, a bill by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) in 2000, which, by the way, 204 Democrats voted for as their floor alternative to H.R. 4680 in the previous Congress; and in the other body, Mr. Speaker, the noninterference or non-negotiation clause was used in legislation authored by Democratic Senator Wyden in 2001 and again in the Jeffords- Breaux-Landrieu legislation in 2002. A version of the noninterference language also appeared in the underlying Senate Medicare bill that passed the Senate June 27, 2003, by a bipartisan vote of 76 to 21. Thirty-five Democrats voted for it, a number of Senators, and I will not name their names, but a number of Democratic Senators all voted for that bill. So why, Mr. Speaker, if this language has appeared so many times in legislation sponsored by both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers of Congress, do we continue to hear the negative rhetoric about such a great bill for our seniors? My guess, Mr. Speaker, it is just political posturing during an election year.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight in honor of the 93rd birthday of one of our greatest Presidents. Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 on the promise of a new America. His fearless determination in the face of the Iron Curtain gave America the hope for a better tomorrow. Reagan's vision inspired the promise of future leaders and guided our country away from big government, high taxes, and economic stagnation towards international strength and fiscal responsibility. Born February 6, 1911, President Reagan studied economics at Eureka College, took a job as a sportscaster, and found his way to Hollywood where he appeared in 53 films. One of the most famous films was ``Knute Rockne--All American,'' where Reagan played legendary Notre Dame star George Gipp. ``Win one for the Gipper,'' Knute Rockne proclaimed as he inspired his players to defeat Army for their last and only one of the season. This line later became the campaign motto for our 40th President. Reagan embarked on his journey into politics as president of the Screen Actors Guild, and he soon realized his talents were needed in the political arena. Reagan went on to become the Governor of California in 1966, campaigned for President in 1972 and 1976, and was elected President of the United States in 1980, winning 489 electoral votes. Amidst high inflation at home and hostages abroad, Americans longed for renewal, sweeping Ronald Reagan into office. Sixty-nine days after his inauguration, Reagan was shot by a would-be assassin. As doctors rushed him to surgery, Reagan stated, ``I hope you are all Republicans,'' only to hear his doctor reply, ``Today, Mr. President, we are all Republicans.'' Reagan returned balance and exuberance to our government. Suddenly, there were two political parties working together towards meaningful legislation to renew our economy with tax cuts. Reagan's America was a place where all Americans were self-reliant. Reagan showed that big government was not the answer, but the problem. Reagan's agenda was to reduce the size of our government, cut spending, and reinvigorate our economy. The success of President Reagan's economic strategy has given us direction on how to restore an economy recovering from a recession. In 1986, Reagan overhauled the income tax code, which eliminated millions of people with low incomes from the tax rolls. He knew that the best way to encourage economic growth was to give money back to the people. Reagan's tax cut sparked one of the most ambitious and fastest-growing economies in our history. We are beginning to see similar results under President Bush's tax cuts. Reagan proved that tax cuts could spark the necessary investment for a new economy. In foreign policy, Reagan's motto was ``peace through strength,'' as he embarked on a quest to end the Cold War, reunite Germany, reduce nuclear arms, and fight terrorism. Reagan is credited for winning the Cold War and setting the stage for the fall of the Berlin Wall. Although the birth of America's new economy in the 1980s is his economic legacy, people that remember the Reagan era recall a spirit of patriotism like no other. People rallied behind the banner of American ideals in the face of Communism and international insecurity. After the threat of terrorism in the late 1970s and early 1980s, our Nation needed a reason to feel unity and security. Reagan was there to lend his wit and his hope in our Nation to all Americans. He gave us hope and promise when we needed it most, and Reagan's true legacy is the restoration of the dream that is America. Happy birthday, Mr. President.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues from the other side of the aisle that just as in childbirth, our labors in the Congress often start in the morning sunshine and after long hours of painful work in the full light of day then result in a delivery of a beautiful baby in the dark of night. Had this debate commenced in the dark of night, then the delivery would no doubt have been in the light of day. In any regard, Mr. Speaker, in passage of the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2003, this President and the leadership of this House have delivered on a promise made to our beloved seniors. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we, the Republican majority, are the promise keepers on this issue. I am proud to have voted as a physician Member of this body in the affirmative. The gentleman from South Carolina talked about hearing from his constituents. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from my constituents as well, things like is it true that in this bill the neediest of our seniors, those who are living at or near the poverty level, are helped the most? Is it true that the new Medicare beneficiaries will begin to receive for the first time ever a complete physical examination? Is it true that in order to help save Medicare for our children and grandchildren, the wealthiest seniors will have to pay for the first time more of their part B premium? And finally, Mr. Speaker, is it true that it has taken 38 years to finally provide seniors with prescription drug coverage? I answer to those seniors a resounding guilty as charged. I am proud of this bill. I thank the gentlewoman for giving me the opportunity to speak.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rural package provided for in the House-Senate Medicare agreement. The package corrects existing inequities for rural and small town hospitals and providers by equalizing the disproportionate reimbursement payments they have been experiencing in the past. Rural hospitals' base payment rate will be permanently extended by 1.6 percent to match the urban hospital payment rate and the amount of disproportionate share payments will be more than doubled to 12 percent of total Medicare inpatient payments. The bill additionally pays cost plus 1 percent to the Critical Access Hospitals to ensure that they can improve access and services. And that, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the purpose of the rural package: To provide immediate help to rural area and small city hospitals so that they can provide sustained access and quality service to their patients. Our seniors deserve nothing less than that, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of our Nation's rural hospitals. Pass the Medicare conference report.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time, and I promise to tone down the rhetoric just for a couple of minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for the Medicare agreement. Today, we face a Medicare reality, a reality that requires change, reform, and willing leadership. Though not a perfect solution, the Medicare agreement is a big step in the right direction, a step in the right direction by providing our seniors with assistance to pay for the rising cost of prescription medications, medications that will help them live longer and help their lives; a step in the right direction by supplying appropriate reimbursement updates for hospitals, and updates to ensure that hospitals sustain the ability to provide needed goods and quality services for their patients; a step in the right direction by blocking the proposed cut in Medicare reimbursements to physicians and, instead, provide a positive update, reimbursements that will allow physicians to properly serve their patients and curb the trend of reduced access. I urge my colleagues to take this step to help our seniors, our hospitals, and our physicians and adopt this rule so we can pass the Medicare conference report.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the House- Senate Medicare agreement. For those of us who had hoped that this bill would contain more reforms or greater cost constraints, I agree. We did not accomplish all that we had hoped. But as a physician, I realize the medical reality of the bill, a medical reality that the prescription drug benefit itself is fiscally responsible and a potential cost-saver for Medicare. By providing a prescription drug benefit, providers will be able to take the necessary preventive action to potentially stave off or treat an illness in an earlier stage, making it easier to control the cost of treatment. The medical reality is that prescription medication can help seniors live longer, healthier lives, while saving a tremendous amount of money on treatment by avoiding costlier options. Although I hope the future will bring about more changes and modernization to Medicare, the Medicare agreement will be a great start. And I urge my colleagues to take this fiscally responsible step and pass the Medicare conference report.