Last night, I spoke at length on the House floor about the need to suspend the Visa Waiver program until secure technology is in place to ensure we aren’t letting terrorists into America under the cloak of this program.  Currently, the Visa Waiver program allows citizens from 27 countries – from Japan to France – to enter the U.S. without a visa.  This widely opens the door for terrorist to enter our county, and in fact we know they are using this program.  Just take a look at some of the known terrorists that have entered the U.S. through the Visa Waiver program:

I have introduced legislation in the House to suspend the Visa Waiver program until high-tech security measures are in place to check the terrorist and criminal background of everyone using the program. To read more about my legislation, click HERE.  Below is one important security feature that hasn’t been universally adopted: tamper-proof passports. Many Visa Waiver countries do not yet have passports that are secure. 

If you want to understand the critical nature of this issue, just read these quotes from an Associated Press article last Friday:

“Al-Qaida is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment…”

“The group will bolster its efforts to position operatives inside U.S. borders… U.S. officials have expressed concern about the ease with which people can enter the United States through Europe because of a program that allows most Europeans to enter without visas.”

The time to act is now. I’ll post the video of my speech HERE shortly, so check back this afternoon.

Last night, I conducted a telephone townhall meeting with citizens in Cobb County.  It was a lively discussion that last about 90 minutes. Some of the topics raised were: the economy, the war in Iraq and our greater War on Terror, reimbursement rates for the disabled, veteran healthcare, immigration and border security, the Fair Tax, violence on TV and traditional values.

I greatly enjoy these tele-townhall meetings, because they’re a wonderful way for me to talk with the folks back home when I’m in Washington.  So far this year, I’ve placed calls to citizens in Paulding, Gordon, Cobb, Haralson, Polk, Chattooga, Floyd, Bartow and Carroll counties. If you haven’t gotten a call yet, you likely will in the upcoming months.

Today, the House is debating H.R. 2956, legislation to require U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq in 120 days.  As in the past, I firmly oppose strategies that advertise a date certain defeat – so I firmly oppose this bill. 

While I am not happy with the situation in Iraq today and want our troops home as soon as it is responsible to do so, we must give our new strategy time to make progress before we pass judgment on it.

The timing of today’s bill should raise some serious questions for my readers.  It comes at a critical point in the Global War on Terror, a point at which our efforts should be focused on defeating terrorism inflicted by Islamic jihadists, not usurping the power of our military commanders, as this bill does. Today’s debate comes on the heels of an intelligence analysis stating al-Qaida has regrouped to a level not seen since 9/11, with a greater ability to strike inside the United States.  It comes in the immediate aftermath of the Muslim extremist attacks in London and Glasgow.  In sum, it comes at a time when our decisions must be based on strategic interests, not political grandstanding.

However, this bill is not designed to help us fight terrorism or secure U.S. interests.  In fact, its timing has nothing to do with national security at all. 

Consider this: the Democrat leadership wants us to vote on a change of course before we’ve had an opportunity to fully analyze the President’s interim report on our strategy in Iraq, and well ahead of the September report General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will deliver analyzing the success of the troop surge and its accompanying missions. 

So why are we debating this bill now?  Curiously, it comes at a time when this Democratic Congress has an approval rating as low as 14%.  Additionally, the base of their party – the extremist left – is angry that the “Out of Iraq” caucus failed to deliver.  So what does the new leadership do?  They take another shot at Old Faithful.  When all else fails, when they can’t get anything accomplished, when all they can deliver to the American public is the most closed Congress in history, they engage in another round of political theater engineered to do nothing but grab a few headlines and appease their liberal base.

When the September report is presented, we will need to take a hard look at the progress being made by the Iraqi government and military.  If the report doesn’t show progress, then it will absolutely be appropriate to redefine our strategy and objectives.  But – and this is a critical point – that action should come at the right time militarily, not the convenient time politically.

Thankfully, President Bush firmly opposes the misguided legislation we’re debating today. Stay tuned for more on this pressing issue.

Today, the House is once again debating legislation to mandate troop withdrawal from Iraq – this time in 120 days.  The Washington Post today opines that this strategy is simply “wishful thinking” on the part of Democrats:

IT SEEMS like just weeks ago, because it was, that Congress approved funding for the war in Iraq and instructed Gen. David H. Petraeus to report back on the war’s progress in September. Now, for reasons having more to do with American politics than with Iraqi reality, September isn’t soon enough.

…Advocates of withdrawal would like to believe that Afghanistan is now a central front in the war on terror but that Iraq is not; believing that doesn’t make it so. They would like to minimize the chances of disaster following a U.S. withdrawal: of full-blown civil war, conflicts spreading beyond Iraq’s borders, or genocide. They would have us believe that someone or something will ride to the rescue: the United Nations, an Islamic peacekeeping force, an invigorated diplomatic process. They like to say that by withdrawing U.S. troops, they will “end the war.”

Conditions in Iraq today are terrible, but they could become “way, way worse,” as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, a career Foreign Service officer, recently told the New York Times. If American men and women were dying in July in a clearly futile cause, it would indeed be immoral to wait until September to order their retreat. But given the risks of withdrawal, the calculus cannot be so simple. The generals who have devised a new strategy believe they are making fitful progress in calming Baghdad, training the Iraqi army and encouraging anti-al-Qaeda coalitions. Before Congress begins managing rotation schedules and ordering withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer some new hope.

We couldn’t agree more. To read the complete op-ed, click HERE.

In light of the recent terrorist activities in Glasgow and London, I thought this might be a good time to discuss a piece of legislation I’ve introduced to help prevent terrorist attacks in our country. The United States currently operates a Visa Waiver Program, which enables citizens from certain “friendly” countries to travel to the U.S. without obtaining a visa.  There’s a major flaw in this legislation – terrorists don’t just operate in unfriendly nations. As we witnessed this past weekend, they operate within the borders of our closest allies as well. Until we can screen every person entering the United States under the Visa Waiver Program, we cannot continue to support a program that allows terrorists to cross our borders unchecked.

The 2001 Patriot Act requires the Visa Waiver program to include a machine-readable and tamper resistant biometric identification system – but this system is not yet in place!  Even though these mandated security requirements are not fully operational, we still allow the program to continue – widely opening the door for terrorists to enter our country every day.

(more…)

Last night, I hosted a very successful telephone townhall meeting with citizens in Cobb County.  Tele-townhalls are a new way I’m working to communicate with residents of Georgia’s 11th District and hear their thoughts on today’s pressing issues. Here’s how it works: each month, I choose a county and place phone calls to the residents who live there.  I invite them to join in a live, toll-free tele-townhall meeting, and then conduct the meeting over the telephone.  Those who are listening can ask me questions or share their thoughts on a particular issue.

So far this year, we’ve called Floyd, Chattooga, Bartow, Paulding, Cobb, Polk, Haralson and Carroll Counties.  We’ll continue hosting a tele-townhall meeting each month, so if you missed me the last time I called your county, you can be sure I’ll be calling again in the upcoming months. For those of you who weren’t on the call last night, here are the topics we discussed:

Immigration reform and ending chain migration
Tax relief and the Fair Tax
Gas prices
The War on Terror and our efforts in Iraq
Healthcare reform
Combating drug abuse, especially methamphetamine abuse

I really enjoy these opportunities to hear your thoughts and concerns. But you don’t have to wait for a tele-townhall to let me know what’s on your mind. Feel free to email me by clicking HERE, or click HERE to get contact information for my offices in Washington, Marietta and Rome.

The Democrat leadership has abandoned its foolish insistence on trying funding for our troops to an arbitrary withdrawal deadline in Iraq. The Washington Times reports:

Congressional Democrats yesterday backed down in the standoff with the White House over war funds, abandoning their veto-instigating effort to link deadlines for withdrawing troops from Iraq to President Bush’s request for more than $100 billion in emergency spending.

… “Democrats have finally conceded defeat in their effort to include mandatory surrender dates in a funding bill for the troops,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

You might remember that earlier this month, President Bush vetoed a supplemental funding bill that took military decisions away from our combatant commanders and set an October 2007 deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. Stay tuned, as the House is expected to vote on the new troop-funding bill this week.

Once again, the House’s Democrat majority is trying to pass off theatrics as some kind of actual policy. Today, Speaker Pelosi will stage an elaborate and politically-timed signing ceremony for the Iraq troop withdrawal bill Congress passed FIVE days ago.  Why the wait? To make a bigger media event out of it, of course. Never mind that every day Congress fails to pass a clean funding bill for our troops in another day our warfighters have to make do without money they need to win this war. With the Democrat leadership, it’s always politics first, policy later.

Let me remind readers that our troops have been waiting nearly three months for Congress to pass the President’s requested supplemental funding for the war.  The Democrat leaders might think a few days here and a few days there don’t amount to much, but every day they stall to appease leftwing activists is another day our military lacks critical funding. When you consider that President Bush has already vowed to veto this irresponsible legislation, it is clear Speaker Pelosi’s theatrics are simply slowing down the process of getting much-needed money to our troops.

I know many Americans – especially those who support a strong national defense and our nation’s important work in the global War on Terror – join me in asking Speaker Pelosi to quit playing politics with our national security and let Congress vote on a clean funding bill for our troops. The Democrat leader may support legislation that accepts defeat in this war, but our troops in harms way most certainly do not.

This weekend, the Marietta Daily Journal’s editorial board opined:

President Bush has kept his veto pen in his pocket for nearly all of his presidency, but has promised to use it when a bill arrives on his desk passed by the Democrat-controlled House and Senate this week that sets an Oct. 1 deadline for us to start retreating from Iraq, whether the war is going well at that point or not.

We urge him to waste no time in vetoing that emergency supplemental spending bill, if he has not already done so by the time you are reading this. There are numerous good reasons for doing so. It would put Congress in the position of micromanaging the war; it was larded with pork by Democratic leaders in hopes of picking up more votes; and most important of all, it would tell al-Qaida and our other enemies that we lack the stomach to stand up to a determined enemy. The people of this country are disgruntled with the way the war has been fought, but most of them - at least those who are not members of the Democratic caucuses on Capitol Hill - are not yet ready to surrender.

It’s already abundantly clear that the Democrats in charge on Capitol Hill lack the will to fight. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada even went so far as to proclaim the war is lost and to call new U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus a liar when the general accurately said things there were beginning to improve.

Now, amazingly, the Democrat-led Congress not only is trying to cut Petraeus (and our troops) off at the knees, he has been deliberately snubbed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who refused to attend a special briefing with him this week in Washington, claiming scheduling conflicts. In other words, Pelosi - who found time to jet halfway around the world to cozy up with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad - can’t find the time to meet with our top general in Iraq. She and Reid are embarrassments not only to this country, but should be considered embarrassments by their party as well.

… The better option is for Bush to veto the bill, and for the Democrats in Congress to shift their focus to finding ways to win the war in Iraq, rather than trying to their level best to find a way to lose it.

To read Phil’s thoughts on the “Democrats’ surrender bill”, click HERE.

Both the House and Senate have now passed misguided legislation requiring our troops to withdrawal from Iraq in October of this year.  It’s worth noting that this deadline – Oct. 1 – is not based on any concrete military strategy; it is simply a political preference of the majority party.  So much for the expertise and advice of our military commanders…

Thankfully, President Bush has firmly stated he will veto this detrimental legislation. I want to remind our readers that American troops are still waiting for critical funding needed to fight the War on Terror.  Every day the Democrat leaders waste on irresponsible legislation they know the President will veto is one more day our warfighters have to wait for their funding.  I know President Bush will quickly veto this legislation, so Congress can get to work on a true funding bill to give our troops the tools they need to achieve victory.

For more of my thoughts on this issue, click HERE. You can also watch a video denouncing this bill on the House floor by clicking HERE.

The Washington Times today discusses the implications of arbitrary withdrawal deadlines in Iraq:

After lots of hard work getting the spin just right, a House-Senate conference committee has cobbled together a $124 billion war-funding bill for President Bush to veto… The Iraq portions of the bill serve to illustrate why the Framers did not give the legislative branch primary authority to conduct foreign policy. Under the legislation, American troops will begin pulling out by July 1 if the elected Iraqi government fails to meet a series of congressional demands, which include reducing sectarian violence — meaning, in effect, that if al Qaeda wants to speed up an American troop pullout, it might want to bomb more Shi’ite mosques — guaranteeing that sectarian violence would worsen.

Other demands include enactment of a law to share oil revenue. Desirable as this is, it is irrelevant if security does not exist in Iraq, and the U.S. military remains the only thing standing in the way of a total collapse of the government. But the bill goes on to mandate that even if the Iraqis meet all of Washington’s demands, the troops will start to leave Iraq Oct. 1, with a goal of bringing most of them home by next April.

One might ask: What happens if the terrorist insurgents and militias haven’t decided to go out of business by that time? In Congress’s fantasy world, none of that matters. This legislation wasn’t put together with the goal of defeating jihadists on the battlefield. Quite the contrary: With Republican support negligible, it was crafted to ensure the broadest possible coalition of Democrats would vote for a surrender bill. To satisfy the MoveOn.org types, particularly in the House, the bill starts the pullout as early as nine and a half weeks from now. In an effort to provide political cover for House “Blue Dogs” from more conservative districts who want to vote with Mrs. Pelosi, it contains troop-withdrawal language that sets a “goal” for pulling out rather than a deadline.

The Democrats’ lack of interest in the real-world impact of their legislation is reflected in their shabby treatment of the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus. Last week, House Democratic leaders initially declined Gen. Petraeus’ invitation to brief members, reversing themselves only after coming under fire from Republicans. In a CNN interview that aired Monday, Mr. Reid appeared to question whether Gen. Petraeus is being truthful when saying that success is achievable in Iraq. And by tying funding for the war to a surrender bill that the president will veto, the Democrats are showing studied contempt for our troops in the field.

Click HERE for the complete Editorial.

I want to make sure the readers back home understand what is happening right now with regard to legislation that provides critical money for our troops. Our soldiers have been waiting and waiting for Congress to pass emergency legislation to fund their efforts in the War on Terror… and it looks like they’ll have to keep on waiting some more.

Instead of passing a clean bill the President could sign into law, last month the Democrats chose to pass a political statement that ties troop funding to arbitrary withdrawal deadlines, and is loaded with earmarks for shrimpers and spinach farmers.  President Bush has rightly vowed to veto this legislation.

But now, the Democrats are dragging their feet on their own legislation.  First, we took a two week recess without funding our troops, and now we’ve been back in Washington for four days without the Speaker even appointing conferees for the bill – a critical step that would allow the legislation to move forward.

I’m left wondering: why is Congress dragging its feet on critical funding for our soldiers?  Where is the commitment to national defense the Democrats promised America in last year’s election? Our troops can’t win this war with political rhetoric; they need money.  They need supplies.  I have called on this House to pass a clean bill and get it to the President’s desk, so we can give our warfighters the tools they need to achieve victory.  Stay tuned for updates on this important effort.

If you missed Phil discussing the situation in Iraq on MSNBC’s Hardball last night, you can watch the video by clicking HERE (Windows Media Player required).

The Military Times today reports that Democrat leaders are moving to banished the phrase “Global War on Terror” from the Congressional lexicon:

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”
¼br /> The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Does Speaker Pelosi think we can win this war by playing word games? It’s a war. It’s global. And we’re fighting terrorists.  The name seems pretty fitting to the circumstances. If the Democrat leaders think names changes will bolster their party’s anemic record on security and defense, they’re in for a rude awakening.

The Associated Press today reports on this disturbing news:

Teams assigned to make sure foreigners facing departure orders actually leave United States have a backlog of more than 600,000 cases and cannot accurately account for the fugitives’ whereabouts, the government reported.

The report by the Homeland Security Department’s inspector general found that the effectiveness of teams assigned to find the fugitives was hampered by “insufficient detention capacity, limitations of an immigration database and inadequate working space.”

For the complete article, click HERE.

An editorial in this morning’s USA Today supports Phil’s concerns over the Democrats’ misguided emergency war spending bill:

With the House poised to vote Friday on a $124.1 billion budget bill that would end U.S. involvement in Iraq next year, you’d think House leaders would let such a critical decision ride strictly on its merits.

But Democrats are having trouble rounding up votes for the measure. So the leaders are trying to buy votes the old-fashioned way — by luring wavering members with billions of dollars for parochial projects…. These provisions demean a bill that, if enacted, would affect the lives of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the balance of power in the Middle East and America’s long-term security.

USA Today goes on to list some of those projects:

•$25 million for spinach growers to recoup losses suffered when contaminated spinach sickened nearly 200 people and resulted in three deaths last year. (Instead of rewarding growers, the government would do better to direct money at safety measures to prevent future contamination.)
•$252 million for a government milk program beneficial to dairy farmers, inserted in the bill by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which wrote the bill.
•$1.5 billion in livestock assistance for producers affected by wildfires or blizzards.

The editorial also points out the hypocritical nature of this legislation:

The provisions also violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the new majority’s promise to cut back on “earmarks” — provisions slipped into bills that direct your tax dollars to a specific locale or politically favored project.

Last January, as soon as Democrats took control of Congress, the House passed new rules designed to curb earmarks… Yet here they go again, just 10 weeks later, including an assortment of dubious expenditures in “emergency” legislation to finance the war in Iraq and the wider war on terror[.]

Finally, USA Today calls a spade a spade:

[A]n emergency war funding bill — especially one that would set a hard exit date of Aug. 31, 2008, for U.S. troops in Iraq and impose strict readiness standards for deploying combat forces — is no place for extraneous issues. And certainly no place for bribes.

Click HERE to watch a video of Phil criticizing Democrat leaders for buying votes with pork on this bill.

From yesterday’s Washington Post:

House Democratic leaders are offering billions in federal funds for lawmakers’ pet projects large and small to secure enough votes this week to pass an Iraq funding bill that would end the war next year.

From today’s Politico newspaper:

One congressman, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution from leaders… noted that Democratic leaders had “made clear” to him that they might yank funding requests he had made for projects in his district if he did not support the measure.

And from The Hill newspaper today:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is holding the implied threat of lost committee seats over the heads of Democratic Caucus members who may vote against her $124 billion Iraq war supplemental bill. […]

During a meeting last week with appropriators, Pelosi reminded them that serving on the panel was a privilege… a Democratic appropriator said.

Vote buying? Threats? Talk about a culture of corruption!  Stay tuned for more - much more…

The Los Angeles Times rains on the Democrats’ parade this morning in an editorial against their plan for Iraq:

AFTER WEEKS OF internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he’ll veto it, as well he should.

It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It’s quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.

The Times continues:

By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It’s absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks. […]

Members of Congress need to act responsibly, debating the essence of the choice the United States now faces — to stay or go — and putting their money where their mouths are. But too many lives are at stake to allow members of Congress to play the role of Eisenhower or Lincoln.

We couldn’t agree more. Last week, Phil called the Democrat leadership’s plan “disappointing and dangerous” and reminded them that no war in American history has been won by giving up.

The immigration debate is heating up again in Washington.  As in past years, I find myself fighting against proposals that amount to little more than amnesty for illegal immigrants.  That’s why I am planning to sign a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi asking her not to bring amnesty legislation to the House floor.  The letter will note that amnesty burdens American taxpayers, hurts American works and rewards lawbreakers.  Stay tuned for more on this critical issue, and know that I will firmly oppose amnesty at every turn.

Today, I introduced the Secure Entry Act, legislation to suspend the Visa Waiver program until we have the technology in place to check the terrorist and criminal backgrounds of every individual using the program. For those who don’t know, the Visa Waiver program allows citizens from 27 countries – including Spain, Japan, Canada, Singapore, Argentina, England and Australia – to enter the United States without applying for a visa.  This opens the door for unscreened terrorists to enter our country.

The Rome News Tribune reported on my legislation today:

“Currently, the visa waiver program trusts the security of our nation to the background checks and passport procedures of foreign countries,” said Gingrey. “That goes against every effort we’ve made to secure our homeland.”

Gingrey said it’s common sense to suspend the program until resources are in place to check the criminal and terrorist background of every person using the waiver program.

We know that terrorists like Zacharias Moussaui and Richard Reid exploited the visa waiver program to gain entry into the U.S.  Yet incredibly, U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein, a democrat from California, has been working to EXPAND the program! Until we have adequate security measures in place, we can not allow this program to continue. Doing so puts us all at risk.

Click HERE for more information on the Secure Entry Act, and HERE for the complete Rome News Tribune article.