More Money From Gingrey to CryoLife?

I reported earlier this week about the passage of a defense spending bill which included a $2.5 million earmark to CryoLife and sought by Congressman Phil Gingrey. I also talked about donations from CryoLife's CEO and CryoLife's PAC to Gingrey in the past. Some research reveals that this isn't the only instance of Gingrey-supported earmarks going to CryoLife. In 2004, Gingrey (along with Senator Saxby Chambliss) steered another one million toward CryoLife.

Ostensibly, the earmarks seem to serve a noble mean: the development of medical technologies to stop massive bleeding caused by battlefield injuries. But even if the Congressman's intentions are completely noble, he should, at the very least, return the campaign contributions received from CryoLife's PAC and from Mark Anderson, CEO of CryoLife.

Gingrey Secures $2.5 million Earmark for Campaign Contributor

The Rome News-Tribune ran a story today regarding the passage of H.R. 3222, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Included in the story is a listing of the eight earmarks Congressman Phil Gingrey helped secure. What's interesting, and unmentioned by the RN-T, is that one of the beneficiaries of Congressman Gingrey's efforts is CryoLife Corporation, which received $2.5 million. What makes it interesting is the fact that CryoLife and Phil Gingrey have had political dealings before.

Mark Anderson, CEO of CryoLife, has given a total of $1,500 of Phil Gingrey's re-election campaigns. On top of the that, CryoLife's PAC has given Congressman Gingrey $6,000: $2,000 during the 2006 election cycle and twice that in 2004, Gingrey's last competitive election.

This one sounds a bit fishy.

Phil Takes a Stand Against Troop Rest and Public Opinion

Heeding the wishes of the American people is "political pandering," at least in Congressman Phil Gingrey's dictionary.

That little ditty came during a meeting of the House Armed Services Committee, which was at the time debating H.R. 3159. This bill is authored by Democrat Ellen Tauscher of California and counts as its co-sponsors Republicans Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, Walter Jones of North Carolina, and Chris Shays of Connecticut. The centerpiece of this legislation is the requirement that members of the American military have a rest period at least equal to (and preferably twice) the amount of time of their previous deployment, an answer to the Stop Loss Program which has extended the tours of duty of thousands of American service members. H.R. 3159 also limits the continuous deployments for the reserves to one year.

And Phil Gingrey opposed this bill. Why, aside from arrogant dismissal of public opinion? Straight from the horse's mouth:

We have no business telling the commander in chief (President Bush) or the
commanders how to conduct the war.

Excuse me? Perhaps the Congressman hasn't read the United States Constitution. So, I'll enlighten him. Article I, Section 8 states that:

The Congress shall have Power...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces [and] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States...

So, yes, Congressman Gingrey, you do have business in regulating the military. It's your job. But Phil and the other Republicans didn't stop at mere ruminations of constitutional powers. A dissenting view from the committee report, signed by Phil Gingrey and most of the other Republicans on the committee, states:

Moreover, we are concerned that by statutorily reducing the pool of forces
available for deployment in the midst of a war--essentially putting brigades and
battalions on the shelf, so to speak--H.R. 3159 as amended would make
substantial reductions in the forces available to meet combatant commander
requirements.

Have they not read the bill? Section 2 (d) explicitly gives the President the power to waive the requirements if he deems the deployments to be vital to the security interests of the country. If anything, the bill grants too much leeway to the President, allowing him too much authority to classify unnecessary military ventures (cough, cough...Iraq...cough, cough) as "vital to national security.

Finally, the dissenting view states that:

Beyond that, the dwell time requirements appear to be not so much efforts to
improve the readiness of units and quality of life of members in the Armed
Forces, but rather to force a withdrawal and reduction of U.S. forces committed
to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

So, basically, they're willing to keep our troops in Iraq for months on end, away from their homes and families, just because their too damn stubborn to admit the war is wrong. But what more can you expect? More standing lock stop with a failed President on a failed war, at the expense of our troops and their families, and, if Gingrey's attitudes toward public opinion are any indicator, the expense of representative, responsible government.

It comes as no surprise that Phil and most of his Republican cohorts voted against the bill when it came up for a vote of the whole House. Those are some real pro-troops and pro-family stances there, Phil.