Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of Energy and Commerce, who just spoke from the well, he said it exactly right. This is a political ploy, bringing this bill up under suspension, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, to give Members on the other side of the aisle the opportunity for cover on this bill, this Castle-DeGette legislation that's coming up tomorrow. When King Solomon ordered that the baby be cut in half, Mr. Speaker, who knew that someone would actually take him up on the offer. And yet regrettably, this bill before us today, H.R. 2560, it aims to figuratively and literally cut the baby in half. Supporters of this legislation claim that H.R. 2650 bans human cloning. This claim could not be further from the truth. If we really want to ban human cloning, then the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), in a bipartisan way, they have the right bill, and this was reintroduced by Representative Weldon last night. I'm a proud cosponsor of that. That bans human cloning for any purpose, reproductive or research. I'm not impugning the motive of Representative DeGette, maybe it's inadvertent, and maybe hopefully she understands through this discussion today about the bill that, inadvertently, this promotes cloning for research purposes. We believe, those of us who are part of the pro-life caucus, strongly believe that when you clone a human Dolly, that is a human being, and then you slice it and dice it to get stem cells and then it's required that you destroy it because it becomes a crime if it's implanted in a woman to become a child. Then we say that you are indeed creating life and destroying life, not maybe for the purpose of reproduction but for the purpose of research, and that is wrong. And that is why we need to vote down this bill today, and I strongly oppose it.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank my friend and former chairman, Mr. Dreier, for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to this rule to H.R. 2316. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act I am not opposed to. It's the rule that I am opposed to. When you have 48 amendments and five of them are made in order, this is not open government. This is not open process. I want to particularly, to my colleagues, mention the fact that I had one of those 43 amendments which were not made in order. And I think if we really wanted meaningful reform in an open government, that this amendment clearly would have been made in order, we would have had an opportunity on the floor of this House to debate it. No, it's not in the Senate version. If it doesn't get in the House version, then, clearly, it's not going to come out of conference. What this amendment basically says is that Members, either Republicans or Democrats, House or Senate, in a leadership position that formed these things known as leadership PACs, cannot convert that money at any time, but especially when they leave this place, to their personal use. Now we did that, or a former Congress, I think, back in the early 1990s, said Members cannot retire from this body and go home with seven figures worth of money in their campaign accounts. For those who are not paying attention, seven figures is over $1 million. A lot of Members, back then in the early 1990s, decided since they were not going to be able to do that after a date certain, they retired so they could go home and spend that money and buy a new vacation home or fancy automobile or whatever. Since then, what's happened is Members have formed these leadership PACs. It's not just leadership Members; in fact, any Member can form a leadership PAC. So I am not saying that the money that they use out of those PACs is improperly or dishonestly spent, but the temptation is there. I want to give you an example of just one. I have 10 listed in my official remarks. I am not here to embarrass anybody. But there was one PAC called Searchlight PAC that, in 2006, raised $2 million. Do you know how much of that money was spent on helping another Member run for a Federal office in that particular PAC's party? $300,000. That means $1.7 million of that PAC's money was spent in some personal way. I don't know if it was dishonest, but we have to stop this sort of thing. Really, I am shocked that this amendment was not made in order. Listen to this letter that was sent to Speaker Hastert last year when my former Chairman Dreier worked on lobbying ethics reform. Here is the letter. ``The House of Representatives is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, and any debate in open government must not restrict the discussion of serious proposals . . . I am calling on you to use your authority as Speaker to direct the Rules Committee to report an unrestricted rule on lobby reform.'' Signed then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Ms. Pelosi obviously has changed her mind this time around. This rule says loud and clear that this House no longer is a marketplace for ideas; there is no room in this House for full and unrestricted debate on open government. That's why I am standing in opposition, not to the bill, but to the rule. We could have made this bill so much better if we had allowed these amendments, such as mine, to be made in order. I ask my colleagues, as former Chairman Dreier said, to oppose this rule.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank my friend and classmate from Texas, Representative Neugebauer, and, of course, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here on the floor this evening with our colleagues and my classmate, Representative Pearce of New Mexico and Judge John Carter from Texas. And you'll hear soon from another classmate of ours from Iowa, Representative Steve King, and, of course, a new Member, but a very experienced one, Tim Walberg from Michigan. It's an honor to be with them, Mr. Speaker, tonight, because this is a time really of victory for our men and women who are the patriots fighting this war in the Middle East. It's not a time for bragging, and we're not here to stick our finger in the eye of the Democrats and say, you know, you were wrong, you were wrong all along, and finally, after 107 days, you have admitted you were wrong, and we have won this argument. Actually, Mr. Speaker, it's been a tremendous loss for the country to go 107 days, or whatever it is, from the time the President asked for the money that the Department of Defense has requested to continue to conduct this war for the rest of this fiscal year, 2007, the $100 billion with no strings attached, Mr. Speaker. The Commander in Chief and the combatant commanders in the field and General Petraeus brought us a new way forward. It's what the American people wanted. It's what the Congress wanted. And our combatant commanders responded to that. And we put in place the highest-ranking four-star general on the ground in Iraq, General David Petraeus, who wrote the manual 6 months before on counterterrorism and knew and knows. And it wasn't just his plan, but it was a plan that was worked out in combination with the Iraqi Government, with Prime Minister Maliki, and it called for essentially all of the things that the Iraq Study Group asked for. That report, Mr. Speaker, was a bipartisan report chaired by two very distinguished political public servants, the Honorable Jim Baker, Republican, the Honorable Lee Hamilton, a long-term member from Indiana, a Democrat, and this is exactly what the President tried to do. And yet the Democratic new majority wanted to insist on these benchmarks that weren't really performance benchmarks but they included a timetable, a timeline, for giving up no matter what the circumstances on the ground were. And the worst and most egregious of those, my colleagues, was to say that in August of 2008, just a little more than a year from now, that no matter what was happening in Iraq, even if it got like when Andrew Jackson had the British running down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, as the song goes, even if we were in that situation, winning this battle, in August of 2008, this Democratic majority wanted to blow the whistle and bring the troops home. And I am telling you at this particular time, as we approach the Memorial Day weekend, what kind of message does that send to those who have given the last full measure of devotion in this war, and in any war, while the Democratic majority tries to get the last full ounce of political blood on the floor of this House? It is shameful, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. Every one of us have gone to some funerals in our districts. And I stand here tonight and I think about the Saylor family, Paul, their son, 22 years old from Breman, Georgia. I think about young Justine Johnson, another 22-year-old from Armuchee, Georgia, up in Floyd County. I think about the former president of my student body at my alma mater, the Georgia Institute of Technology, who 2 years after serving as student body president at that great institution, that first lieutenant gave his life in Iraq, shot down by a sniper while leading his troops. I think about Command Master Sergeant Eric Cooke, who served 30 years in the military, multiple deployments at the tip of the spear, and on Christmas Eve, 2003, my first trip to Iraq, one day after I met him and gave him some books and school supplies for the Iraqi children; he promised to deliver them, but, unfortunately, he took that right seat in a Humvee so that one of his troops could stay home and call his wife and his family and talk to his loved ones on Christmas Eve. And Command Master Sergeant Eric Cooke gave his life one evening when that Humvee went over an improvised explosive device. In the history of this country, we are about to honor those who have given their lives on Memorial Day, the last Monday in May. And at that time I think about and I want my colleagues to think back to World War I when Dr. McCrae wrote that poem ``In Flanders Fields.'' I am not going to try to quote the poem, although it is a very short poem, but the last stanza basically says don't forget it us. Just don't forget us. We fought the battle. Whatever the cause, you may not agree with it, but don't forget us. And I think that is why we felt so strong. I commend this President for vetoing bad bills that would forget the troops and would let them die in vain. So it is an honor to be here tonight to say thank you maybe to the Democratic majority for finally coming to your senses and letting the combatant commanders and the Commander in Chief fight the war. Certainly we could talk about policy and we can talk about funding but not with strings attached. Let's give victory a chance. And I think we have an absolute chance, as my colleagues pointed out, and some of the progress is being made. The news media, of course, doesn't report good news. Good news is an oxymoron, isn't it? So they don't talk about that. But thank you, colleagues, for letting me come tonight and talk about this. I know if the troops are watching over in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think they are very proud that the Congress is supporting them and we are not going to pull the rug out from under them. With that, I want to yield back to my colleague from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer. I know there are a couple of other speakers and I thank the gentleman for giving me the time.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to support H.R. 2272, the 21st Century Competitiveness Act, and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. I want to thank my chairman on the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, Mr. David Wu of Oregon. This legislation we are voting on today is a combination of bills which the House has already overwhelmingly passed, reauthorization bills for both the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as well as bills to promote science, technology, engineering and math, what we refer to as STEM education in our country. Last year, with the American Competitiveness Initiative, President Bush laid out a vision to maintain America's edge in the global marketplace. These goals were spurred by a report issued by the National Academies, and it was entitled, as the gentleman from Florida said, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' This report looked at ways in which the Federal Government could enhance our country's science and technology enterprise so that we can continue to compete and prosper globally. The Commission made a variety of recommendations. Some of them include reforming K-12 education, as well as expanding and strengthening the basic research and science and engineering conducted in America. This comprehensive innovation bill addresses these concerns, and it helps to fulfill this vision. That's why I am proud, proud, to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2272. One provision in this legislation reauthorizes the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, an agency in the Department of Commerce, as one of the three agencies highlighted by the President's American Competitiveness Initiative, and it falls under the jurisdiction of the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee of which, as I said at the outset, I am a proud member. The NIST employees play a critical role in NIST research, which enables cutting-edge technologies to make the leap from a basic research situation into successful commercial products. This is accomplished at NIST by conducting research that supports United States technology infrastructure by developing the tools to measure, to evaluate, and standardize processes and products in almost all industrial sectors, bullet-proof vests all the way to nanotechnology. From rewarding younger students for continuing their work in the fields of science and engineering, to increasing the amount of grants available to teachers and students who pursue continuing education in the STEM, science, technology, engineering, math fields, to providing financial aid to students who make a commitment that after college they will teach, working to ensure that we have a strong United States manufacturing base, H.R. 2272 takes many important and critical first steps toward keeping America competitive. Mr. Speaker, I again want to underline my wholehearted support for the 21st Century Competitiveness Act, and I urge all my colleagues, as I know they will, to do the same.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the city of Marietta, Georgia on being named one of the Nation's top best communities. The National Civic League has designated Marietta as an All-American city for its exemplary and innovative work to strengthen the community through citizen participation. Marietta was recognized for several programs that cut to the heart of the city's commitment to improving the lives of its residents. The Marietta Reads program helps children develop critical literary skills. The M-STAR program helps reduce crime. And the Marietta Revitalization Program helps to create affordable housing and foster safe communities. Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous and well-deserved honor, as the citizens of Marietta have put their hearts and souls into strengthening our community. In fact, Marietta is only the fourth Georgia city to ever achieve this distinction in its 57-year history. We all know that when our friends and neighbors come together for the common good, something special happens in our cities. Schools improve, the economy is bolstered, and our streets are safer. I am incredibly proud that Marietta is leading the way on these important initiatives. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the city of Marietta, its Mayor, Bill Dunaway, its members of Council, and especially my councilman, Van Pearlberg.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding. I rise today in support of H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. I would like to say a special thanks to Chairman Skelton, my good friend, and also to Ranking Member Hunter, as well as Subcommittee Chairman Abercrombie and Ranking Member Saxton, for their tireless efforts in support of our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and marines who are bravely defending us both at home and abroad. Madam Chairman, while not a perfect bill, this legislation covers a wide scope of issues that are vitally important to our armed services, both active and reserve components, and clearly meets the immediate needs of the warfighter. From a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise to an additional $4.1 billion for the MRAP, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, this legislation addresses the most pressing needs of our troops during a very, very trying time for this country. I am further pleased that the bill provides for an increase of 13,000 Army and 9,000 Marine Corps active-duty personnel, as well as $1 billion for National Guard equipment. While I applaud the work of the committee in addressing pressing readiness issues, I am very concerned, Madam Chairman, about the deep cuts to missile defense and, of course, the Army Future Combat Systems. A viable missile defense system is critical to deterring and countering emerging threats to our national security, especially as Iran and North Korea develop their nuclear capabilities. I look forward to working with Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter and the rest of the committee as this bill moves forward to address these program needs. I am pleased, however, that the Armed Services Committee voted unanimously on a bipartisan basis to support another program critical to our national security. Madam Chairman, that is section 1243 of this bill. It affirms that WHINSEC, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, is effectively accomplishing its mission and expresses that because of this success, the Department of Defense should continue utilizing this program to promote security cooperation with Latin American countries. Those who have been taking the time to visit WHINSEC at Fort Benning in Columbus understand the critical importance of this program. By virtue of WHINSEC, the United States is able to engage the military and the security forces of Central and South American countries in a forum where they will be able to learn our values regarding democracy and human rights, especially now human rights, while also being trained in counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism tactics. It is so important to remember that this may be the only medium we ever have to engage the future military and political leaders of these Latin American countries, who are America's closest neighbors; and they can serve as our closest allies. If we were not to engage with these nations, we would be abandoning our most effective means of developing relationships with the security forces of Central and South America. The void created would be filled by countries with different values than our own regarding democracy and human rights, countries, Madam Chairman, such as Venezuela and China, whose influence in the region is growing. And, therefore, I am glad that the Armed Services Committee stands behind WHINSEC. Madam Chairman, there is much to be proud of in this bill, and I again commend Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their efforts to keep this bill focused on the needs of the warfighter, a fact I hope is not lost as we progress through the amendment process. I urge all my colleagues to remember the importance of a strong national defense and to prioritize that over partisan issues which divide us.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I didn't know he was going to yield so quickly. I am still out of breath from running over here. Madam Speaker, I wanted to come and lend my support to my good friend, Congressman David Scott, my colleague from Georgia, and the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act. Congressman Scott and I both served in the Georgia senate, he for a while longer than I did, and with more power in the leadership there, but we had passed similar legislation in Georgia, this commonsense provision, to help give some relief to these young, brilliant attorneys who are willing to go into work to serve either as a prosecutor or a public defender. The reason I feel so impassioned by it, my daughter, Phyllis Collins, has been practicing in the Cobb County judicial system now for about 3 years. She came out of law school at Michigan State after graduating from undergraduate school with a microbiology degree from Georgia Tech. I thought she would become a doctor, but she became a darn good lawyer instead. She came out of that school with about $100,000 in debt, just as this bill indicates in the language we have read. That's just a typical situation that my daughter, Phyllis, is in. She took that job for about $60,000 a year, I believe. She served a year and a half as a prosecutor. Now she is a public defender. It's people like Phyllis Collins that we need to encourage to do this kind of important work on behalf of people, the public defenders, the prosecutors. They are bringing justice to people that otherwise could not afford justice. I think that I want to say once again to Congressman Scott and all the others on our side of the aisle as well, my good friend from Virginia, Randy Forbes, who have brought this bill forward, I thank you for the time. I support it tremendously, and I congratulate you for doing this.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for months Democratic leaders have tried to dictate military strategy by press release with little regard for the service men and women putting their lives on the line every day. Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not realize that the privileges of the majority come with an actual responsibility to govern. Let me say to them, the time for tantrums is over. At long last, we are presented with an opportunity to vote yes or no on abandoning our mission in Iraq. But let's not mistake this newfound direction for some kind of profile in courage. After months of factual disarray, the Democratic Party has not suddenly found its spine; it has simply realized that the liberal agents who drive this majority, MoveOn.org, the labor unions, they have run out of patience. And it is them that demand a vote on abandoning our mission and abandoning it ASAP. Sadly, the Democrats have little concern for the demands of our military or for its waning patience for the funding that they so desperately need. More than 3 months, Mr. Speaker, have passed since the President requested emergency funding for our troops. Over the past 94 days, the Democrats have succeeded only in putting politics over policy and trying to substitute their judgment for that of the combatant commanders. For the past 94 days, they have chosen to beat their chest at press conferences, and yes, on this floor, rather than finding ways to actually get our troops the funding that they need to achieve victory. But, astoundingly, over the past 94 days, Democrats have never once grasped the consequences of resigning ourselves to defeat in Iraq. The void created by our departure would be filled by religious extremists and terrorists. Iran's path to develop nuclear weapons would be cleared. Violence in Iraq would grow exponentially. Shiite death squads and al Qaeda terrorists would further destabilize the democratically elected government. Another rogue regime could take root, leading to genocide. The terrorists, freshly emboldened by our surrender, would then be able to export terrorism around the world. Today, each of us has a critical decision to make: Do we stand by the side of victory or on the side of defeat? Do we stand with our troops or with those who would want to abandon them? Do we rise to the challenge of fostering freedom, or do we capitulate to the political pressure of special interests? The choice, Mr. Speaker, is ours. For the sake of our soldiers and our Nation. I implore my colleagues to choose wisely.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago the Supreme Court upheld the ban on the abomination of partial-birth abortion. I come this morning to say thank you to one of our former Members, the Honorable Chairman Henry Hyde, who served in this body for almost 30 years. Chairman Hyde stood up for the sanctity of life at every step of the way, every day that he served in this great body, and I hope he is enjoying his retirement in the great State of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, Henry once said, ``This is not a debate about religious doctrine or even about public policy options. It is a debate about our understanding of human dignity, what it means to be a member of the human family even though tiny, powerless, and unwanted.'' And I hope my colleagues will all reflect on these words. Chairman Hyde, we thank you from the bottom of our heart. God bless you for your service to this great body.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, while I was unavoidably absent from the floor today to attend the funeral of a close personal friend and great Georgian, C.W. Matthews, I want to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. Had I been present during the actual vote, I would have voted ``no'' to H.R. 1592 because I believe all crimes should be prosecuted equally without special rights based on gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. All criminal acts are committed with the intention of harming or depriving another individual, and trying to elevate crimes against certain individuals would be an arbitrary way to punish. I absolutely believe that those who commit crimes against anyone should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Furthermore, I would have voted ``yes'' in strong support of the motion to recommit which would have amended the legislation to protect seniors and veterans.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of C.W. Matthews, a long-term businessman in Cobb County, Georgia. Mr. Matthews passed away on Sunday at the age of 84, and with his passing, our Nation lost of one of its most inspired industrialists In the 1940s, a 23-year-old Matthews established the C.W. Matthews Contracting Company, which today is the largest highway contractor in the southeastern United States. C.W. was a natural businessman, making friends with ease, growing his company the old-fashioned way, through hard work. Over the past 60 years, the company has employed thousands of workers, built many of the roads that help Cobb County thrive, and even worked on the expansion at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson airport. In fact, Mr. Matthews, with only an eighth-grade education, created one of the most successful family-run businesses in the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell Mr. Matthews' wife, Myrtle, of 66 years, his two sons, two grandsons, and seven great-grandchildren, the entire Cobb County community shares in your loss. We will always remember C.W. as a man of passion, drive and ingenuity. I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the legacy of C.W. Matthews.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, let me just thank my former colleague on the Committee on Rules, Mr. Pete Sessions, the gentleman from Texas. I realize as we get busy running from pillar to post around here, that he was in the process of wrapping up, and it is awfully kind of him to go kind of out of regular order and give me the opportunity, knowing how committed I am to this program, to take a few minutes. I appreciate so much that opportunity. I do rise to support the underlying rule and the bill, H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. I want to take the opportunity to thank my chairman on the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, David Wu from the great State of Oregon, for incorporating into this bill the many suggestions and additions from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as the administration. The final legislation is a better product because of that, and, David Wu, I thank you so much. Last year, with his American Competitiveness Initiative, President Bush provided a vision to maintain America's position in the global marketplace by actually doubling the investment in physical science research over the next 10 years. H.R. 1868 helps fulfill that mission. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST we know it as. It is an agency in the Department of Commerce and one of the three agencies highlighted by the President's American Competitiveness Initiative. NIST has an annual operating budget of about $843 million. It operates in two locations. The headquarters, of course, are in Gaithersburg, Maryland, I have had a great visit there with Dr. Jeffrey, the Director. There is also the facility at the University of Colorado in Boulder. NIST employs 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians and administrative. These employees all play a critical role in this research, which enables cutting-edge technologies to make the leap from basic research into successful commercial products. NIST labs accomplish this goal by conducting research that supports United States technology infrastructure by developing tools to measure, evaluate and standardize processes and products in almost all industrial sectors. For example, NIST labs develops performance standards for bulletproof vests, chemical and biological protection equipment guides for first responders, measurement standards vital to sustaining cutting-edge industries like nanotechnology, we are doing some great work at my alma mater, the Georgia Institute of Technology, on nanotechnology, and, of course, next generation solar cells. The Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act codifies the American Competitiveness Initiative by authorizing 3 years of the proposed 10-year doubling for NIST laboratories and construction budget. That indeed is exactly what the administration asked us to do. That is exactly what Chairman Wu has done and the Science Committee has done. H.R. 1868 also strengthens oversight of NIST programs by requiring the director to submit to Congress annual programmatic planning documents and requiring NIST's Technical Advisory Board to comment on those plans. This will ensure that the budget of NIST is spent on activities that meet the needs of American industry and that Congress is kept abreast of how NIST plans to use its increased funding. Manufacturing is so fundamental, Mr. Speaker, to our Nation's economic vitality. Manufacturing jobs continue to pay more than the average U.S. salaries and they provide better benefits. Mr. Speaker, a strong manufacturing base is so critical to U.S. economic competitiveness. H.R. 1868 supports small and medium-sized manufacturers by reauthorizing the highly successful Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I know every Member is enthusiastic about Manufacturing Extension Partnerships. We refer to them as MEPs. They are wonderful. They are great programs. They help businesses improve manufacturing processes, reduce waste, they train workers to use new equipment. The MEP program receives one-third of its funding from the Federal Government, one-third from the States, and, yes, one-third from fees charged to the participating small businesses, these potential small business manufacturers. This MEP program has over 350 offices located in all 50 States and Puerto Rico. In my great State of Georgia, and again, I mention my alma mater, Georgia Tech, plays a critical role in successfully coordinating the efforts across the State for these MEP programs. H.R. 1868 improves the MEP program by incorporating changes that have passed the House in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. These changes include the codification of an MEP advisory board, the establishment of grant programs to research and identify innovative manufacturing technologies and the formation of research fellowships. I know my colleagues and I can all agree that small and medium-sized manufacturers are the workhorses of our economy. Their future depends on our ability to foster an innovative environment which will enable them to continue developing and adopting advanced technologies that allow them to remain competitive in the ever-increasing global marketplace. Our country's current system of collaboration with university and national lab-based basic research is the best in the world. However, many experts agree that in the phase between science-based ``inventions'' and commercially viable ``innovation,'' inefficiencies exist in our capital markets that contribute to the funding gap for early stage technology development. Currently, the Advanced Technology Program at NIST provides cost- shared funding to bridge the technology development gap for research with potential to deliver widespread economic benefits that would likely not be developed because private sector capital is unavailable. H.R. 1868 repeals the Advanced Technology Program, ATP, and establishes the Technology Innovation Program, TIP, which will award cost-shared grants to small and medium-sized businesses and joint ventures including universities to pursue high-risk technologies with potential significant broad benefits to the Nation. The new Technology Innovation Program incorporates recommendations made by the Bush administration to improve and update the former ATP program to make it more effective in promoting technology transfer that will benefit our entire Nation. Mr. Speaker, past ATP funding advanced technologies for the next- generation auto equipment and techniques including: robotic welding, ceramic coatings, and reinforced plastics as strong as steel. One project dramatically improved the fit of a car body's 300 stamped parts. This advancement may save consumers and automakers up to $650 million in annual maintenance costs. Mr. Speaker, I again want to underline my whole-hearted support for the underlying legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that what we are doing here today in regard to the NIST program is so important to our economy. We worry about jobs. We worry on both sides of the aisle. We talk about that. Every month we look at the number of jobs that were created. It is a barometer that is watched so closely by the Members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, and by the people back home. This is really what this is all about, these kinds of programs. We can fight about a lot of things, but we shouldn't fight about funding the National Science Foundation and the NIST program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and anything like that, like last week when we passed those two bills to improve math and science education in this country. We have to compete globally. Yes, we are in a shooting war in the Middle East and we want to give our soldiers an opportunity to win, but we need to give ourselves an opportunity to win this economic battle of the global economy, and that is what it is all about. Mr. Speaker, I want to again underline my whole-hearted support for the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues, as I know they will, to support it.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud the Texas State legislature for passing House Bill 1098, which prevents mandatory human-papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for middle school girls in the State of Texas until at least 2011. This legislation was a necessary response to the ill-advised executive order signed by Governor Perry in February of this year, which requires every girl in the state of Texas to receive a vaccine against HPV. I stand tonight to encourage the Governor of Texas to quickly sign H.B. 1098 into law and return important healthcare choices to parents and physicians--not the state or Federal government. Madam Speaker, HPV is a sexually transmitted disease of which two strains, types 16 and 18, are associated with about 70 percent of cervical cancers. In June of 2006, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first vaccine that protects against 4 types of HPV. As an OB/GYN physician, I applaud this achievement in modern medicine. However, I am greatly concerned with the trend in many states to introduce legislation or sign executive orders mandating young girls-- 6th graders--receive the HPV vaccine in order to attend school. States have historically established and enforced their own vaccine and immunization practices that dictate their school admittance policies. Requiring school-aged children to receive certain vaccines in order to attend school started as a public health concern so as to avoid widespread outbreaks of communicable diseases. However, Madam Speaker, since HPV can only be spread through sexual contact, mandating this vaccine is unprecedented, and I believe it is an egregious intrusion by government into what should be a parent- physician-patient decision. Accordingly, I have introduced legislation, the Parental Right to Decide Protection Act, which would prohibit federal funds from being used to implement any type of mandatory HPV vaccine program. We need to stand up against this government interference into the lives of our children, which side-steps parental rights and responsibilities. This is why I am so encouraged by the action of the Texas State legislature to stand up for the rights of our children, protect the role of parents and preserve the physician-patient relationship. Madam Speaker, our government should not insert itself into this conversation--and I want to join the many medical groups, patient groups and parental rights groups--to call on the Governor of Texas to sign this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, indeed it is an anniversary. It's about the 80th-day anniversary since the President asked for funding for our troops. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the theatrics the Democratic majority is trying to pass off as some kind of policy. Today, Speaker Pelosi will stage an elaborate and politically timed signing ceremony for the Iraq troop withdrawal bill Congress passed 5 days ago. As President Bush has already vowed to veto this irresponsible legislation, Speaker Pelosi's theatrics are simply slowing down the process of getting much needed funding and money to our troops. Let me remind the American people that our warfighters have been waiting nearly 3 months for Congress to pass the President's requested supplemental funding for the war. The Democratic leader might think a few days here don't mean much, don't matter much. Every day they stall to appease left-wing activists is another day our military must wait for the funding it needs to win this war. Madam Speaker, I admonish Speaker Pelosi to quit playing politics with our national security. Let Congress vote on a clean funding bill for our troops. The Democratic leaders may be content to lose the war, but the troops are in harm's way, and they certainly will not lose this war.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Fairbanks Company in Rome, Georgia, which is celebrating their 120th year of manufacturing this year. In fact, the Fairbanks Company is the oldest surviving manufacturer in Floyd County, dating back to the plant's establishment in 1987. Well, much has changed over the past century. The company has seen its original product line of wagon and railroad track scales give way to the current line of hand-trucks, wheels, dollies and platform trucks. In fact, the company was responsible for all of the trucks that serviced the British steamship Queen Mary and S.S. United States. But one thing has not changed over the past 120 years, Mr. Speaker, and that is the company's commitment to quality and community. Indeed, the Fairbanks Company is a critical industry in the Rome community, and the company's leaders and workers take exceptional pride in their product and their work. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating Fairbanks Company on 120 years of industry in the Floyd County community.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, firmly and resolutely opposed to both this rule and the underlying conference report. I regret to say that the Democratic leaders have once again demonstrated that it is either their way or the highway, except this time it is our fighting men and women who are left stranded in the middle of the road. Mr. Speaker, I am truly saddened and, in truth, even angered by the majority's insistence on putting this war, our generals, and our war fighters on auto pilot with a forced retreat and an inflexible timetable. The consequences of this decision, should it become law, will echo long beyond this date, this year, this decade. Defeat should not be an option, and yet it seems that this majority believes it is the only option. We are at a critical juncture in history when the defenders of liberty and freedom have to stand firm against tyrants and terrorists. And I will remind the gentleman from Virginia that just spoke, indeed, the famous quote says, ``There are times in our history when the tree of liberty must be nourished by the blood of patriots.'' Sure, without question, this war has been hard fought every step of the way, and it will continue to be. But few things worthwhile in life are ever easy. Regrettably, this majority was bought and paid for by MoveOn.org and liberal extremists, and now they have come to collect, unfortunately, at the expense of our military and our security, today, tomorrow, and for decades to come. When the Speaker of the House pushes to rewrite our foreign policy and yet refuses to meet with General Petraeus, our commander on the ground in Iraq, it becomes abundantly clear this majority would rather push left-wing politics over sound policy. This political theater would be funny if its consequences weren't a matter of life and death, of victory and defeat. Every day that we delay a legitimate war-funding bill, the resources of our military and our soldiers' quality of life are diminished. In fact, this delay has forced the Pentagon to move $800 million from the Air Force's personnel accounts, money to pay our servicemembers, to make up for the gaps in the war funding. I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, oppose this rule, oppose this conference report. Let us end this political game and truly give victory a chance. We can do better, Mr. Speaker. We have an obligation to do better for the sake of the men and women who put their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect ours.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I do rise today in strong support of H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act. This legislation, just like H.R. 362 which we just passed, is a fantastic opportunity for bipartisanship to support math and science education in this country. Taken in combination with that bill, 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds, we lay a crucial foundation in maintaining America's competitiveness worldwide. The National Academies released a report entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' It looked at ways in which the Federal Government could enhance our country's science and technology enterprise so we can continue to compete and prosper in this global marketplace. In addition to its recommendations with respect to K-12 education, the commission came to the conclusion that there is a general lack of research in science and engineering in America. Our country must face the reality that China and India are making significant strides and pouring major resources into science and engineering. Therefore, in order to stay competitive, we need to not only encourage young students to get excited by the possibilities that exist with technology advances, but we also need to support young scientist research. Since younger scientists are more likely to do innovative and transformative work, it is in our country's best interest to ensure that these young scientists indeed have the support that they need. Mr. Chairman, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Act offers rewards for younger students in order to encourage them to continue their work in the fields of science and engineering. This legislation also strengthens Federal support for science and engineering researchers at the early stages of their career by expanding the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program at NSF, establishing a Presidential Innovation Award, and authorizing NSF to authorize research on innovation. Again, I want to emphasize that I truly believe in order for our great Nation to remain competitive in the ever-advancing global marketplace, we need to sustain and strengthen our commitment to long- term basic research. This is research that has the potential to be transformational in maintaining the flow of new ideas that fuel our economy, provide security and enhance the quality of life for all Americans. Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe this legislation is a great first step to address this impending crisis, both in America's workforce and our country's research institutions, and I am proud to support the bill, and I ask all of my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, and hopefully I will not run out of time, but I did want to at this point say that as much as I am for this bill, I have to oppose one of the amendments that is going to be offered by the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand, the Gillibrand amendment. It is duplicative. We already do that under the Department of Education in regard to providing scholarships, merit scholarships for advanced students in our high schools. We already do that through the Department of Education, and it is a very well-funded program. But more importantly, Mr. Chairman, the reason I am opposed to the amendment, in a way it contradicts what we just did in H.R. 362, where we said we will give these grants to these students to encourage them to study and pursue math and science and engineering types of advanced degrees in college with a payback, a two-for-one payback if they go into the teaching profession in a community where we have that great need for outstanding math and science teachers. With that, Mr. Chairman, again, I support the bill. I am opposed to the Gillibrand amendment for the reasons outlined.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of our troops who are still waiting for critical funding needed to fight the war on terror. I want to make sure the American people understand what is happening with legislation that provides money for our soldiers. Instead of passing a clean bill the President could sign into law, the Democrats chose to pass a political statement that ties troop funding to arbitrary withdrawal deadlines, and it's loaded with earmarks. The Democrats have even dragged their feet on their own legislation, taking a 2-week recess without funding our troops and spending another week in Washington bickering over a bill that they know that the President will veto. Why are we playing politics with money for our soldiers? Our troops can't win this war with political rhetoric. They need money, they need supplies, and they have been waiting over 70 days since the President made the request. I call on this House to pass a clean bill, get it to the President's desk, so we can give our war fighters the tools that they need to achieve victory.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the chairman's amendment. I know on this bill, H.R. 362, this is a perfect example of everything being said but not every one of us having an opportunity to say it. I rise in support of the amendment of Chairman Gordon and also the bill. I can't improve on the words of the distinguished Speaker that we heard from just a few minutes ago, but I do want to applaud and support this H.R. 362, 10,000 Teachers, 10,000 Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act, and certainly applaud Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall and the work that they have done. I am proud to be a member of the Science and Technology Committee and to see this come to the floor today. The National Academy released a report, Mr. Chairman, entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' that looked at the ways in which the Federal Government could enhance our country's science and technology enterprise so that we can continue to compete and prosper in the global marketplace. The commission arrived at one outstanding and alarming conclusion: American students are falling behind in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and math, sometimes referred to as STEM. In response to this sobering reality, the report recommends vastly improving the K-12 science and math programs in classrooms across the country in order to increase America's talent pool. We talk about raising the level of H-1B visas, doubling them. That might be part of the solution, Mr. Chairman, but we need to develop our homegrown talent. Early education is crucial in getting children not only excited about math and science, but adequately prepared to pursue these fields later in life. And I strongly believe by recruiting, retaining, and training better educators in these fields more students will want to attend college in the areas of science, technology, and math. And that is the key to keeping America competitive in the ever-increasing technological global marketplace. The 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship program begins to remedy this situation by implementing a variety of action items recommended by this report. First, H.R. 362 seeks to raise both the quantity and quality of math and science teachers in America by increasing the number and amount of grants available to teachers and students who pursue continuing education in these fields. It also increases grants within a program at the National Science Foundation that provides financial aid to students who make a commitment to teach after college. Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe this legislation is a good first step to address this impending crisis of America's workforce. I am again proud to support the bill, to support Chairman Gordon's amendment. I respectfully ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand my former colleagues on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor) being in favor of this rule and this underlying bill. But I rise, Mr. Speaker, in strong opposition to the underlying legislation, H.R. 1361, the RECOVER Act. This legislation is bad fiscal policy. It increases the cost to America's taxpayers of providing disaster assistance, while increasing the probability that the Federal Government will lose money to default losses. It was Huey Long, the long-time Governor and Senator from Louisiana, the gulf coast, the Kingfish, as he was known, who said, ``I can frighten or buy 99 out of every 100 men.'' Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that my Democratic colleagues are trying to buy votes with this bill. But I do know that we need to closely examine the money our government spends to ensure that it is spent responsibly. We have worked hard to fund the redevelopment of the gulf coast, committing more than $110 billion of Federal resources. That includes $4.7 billion to FEMA to remove debris and repair and rebuild public infrastructure and buildings; $17 billion from HUD for Community Development Block Grants, the largest housing recovery program in United States history; $6 billion for the Corps of Engineers to rebuild and restore levees so that we can rebuild below sea level; $16.1 billion paid out in national flood insurance claims, $1 billion for Health and Human Services to cover all of Louisiana's health care costs. And the list, Mr. Speaker, goes on and on. There are right ways and wrong ways to fund redevelopment. This Congress has delivered $14 billion in incentives to spur private business investment and economic development to create jobs, another $600 million in Gulf Opportunity Zone tax credits to the region, with an additional $400 million expected to be awarded this fall to encourage more business investment. But today we are debating a bill which would harm small business across the Nation by giving away money that will never, and I repeat, that will never get repaid. Mr. Speaker, provisions in title II of this bill would allow gulf businesses whose application for a disaster loan has been denied, to then receive $100,000 in grant money. And if a business has already received a loan, this bill will make sure that same business can also get a grant, and in the process, they will make certain that the grant money is not used to repay the loan. So, yes, Mr. Speaker, you heard right. If the SBA decides your business is not viable enough for a loan, Congress is going to come in and just give you the money. What is more, now you can get paid twice for the same disaster. Mr. Speaker, the sad fact is, this bill will hurt small businesses across the country. When the SBA makes a loan and that loan is repaid, the SBA loans that money to another business, and the cycle repeats itself. But by removing the repayment part of this cycle and requiring the SBA to send a $100,000 grant to those businesses who do not qualify for a disaster loan in the first place, we are diluting the resources of the SBA and hindering its ability to extend loans to businesses in other parts of the country, businesses fully capable of repaying them. Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues are ignoring any semblance of restraint by treating our Treasury as a bottomless pit. In raising the risk of unrecoverable default losses, by giving away free money, it would certainly seem they are doing their level best to prove Huey Long's words to be true. I urge my colleagues, vote against the rule and vote against the underlying bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for putting together this special order hour this evening. Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of this body now for 4\1/2\ years, this being my third term. And as I stand here tonight in front of my colleagues, I want to say emphatically that this is my finest hour as a Member of this great body, this United States House of Representatives that I have been a part of with 434 of my colleagues. We have disappointments. We have good days, we have bad days. But this is a good day, and this is a good day. And this is a day that the Lord has made. And that is why it is a good day. I sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that God's hand is in everything we do, every deliberation, every bill, everything that seems so important to us, every victory, every defeat. Indeed, I even think maybe God's hand was in the Republican majority, my party, losing that opportunity possibly as a wake-up call. But I want to thank God this evening for Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. It has taken a long time, Mr. Speaker. Back in 1992, when this abhorrent procedure was first described, and then finally I think it was in early 1995 maybe when the Member of this body from Florida, Representative Kennedy, first introduced this bill to ban this procedure. And that bill to ban this abortion procedure, not to ban abortion, but to ban this type of abortion, which really is not an abortion; it is literally infanticide. It is killing of an infant. And it passed this body, and it passed this other body, only to be vetoed twice by the then President of the United States. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, today I thank God for Representative Steve Chabot from Ohio, who brought this bill once again to this body in 2003, my first year, my freshman year. And I was so proud to vote for Representative Chabot's bill. And I thank God for former Senator Rick Santorum from the great State of Pennsylvania. Wherever he is tonight, I want to say, Rick, you lost your race, but you didn't lose the battle. And we thank God for your efforts then, because it has come to fruition now. Mr. Speaker, I want to maybe make sure that my colleagues remember as they listen to my remarks tonight that I spent 26 years practicing obstetrics and gynecology. And in that great specialty, which I am so proud to be a part of that group, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, I had an opportunity to deliver 5,200 babies by my estimate over a 26-year period of time. They weren't all perfect. Some were born with birth defects. Some had spina bifida. And I have great friends in my hometown of Marietta, Georgia, in Cobb County, great, great parents like Brad and Kim Barfield, who have a beautiful little girl today who is suffering from spina bifida. They knew at 20 weeks that their little girl had that condition, but they didn't elect to terminate that pregnancy by a partial-birth abortion. And many others know ahead of time that they are going to have a child with Down's Syndrome, but they know that that is a gift from God that makes their lives better and the lives of their other children, the siblings. And I thank God for them. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to understand how this procedure of partial-birth abortion came about, because I remember. I remember when I was a resident in this specialty at the Medical College of Georgia back in 1974, 1975, shortly after Roe v. Wade was passed within a year. There was a physician at a major medical center in the northeast, I do not remember the hospital, I do not remember the doctor's name, but it was at a teaching center. Back then, if a woman did not have an abortion at 12 to 14 weeks of pregnancy, the first trimester, and in fact, 90 percent of the million annual abortions that are performed in this country are done in the first trimester by a fairly simple procedure called a D&C, but if the pregnancy went beyond and it got to the second trimester and approaching the third trimester, and we are talking now about a 22, 24-week pregnancy when a baby weighs two-and-a- half pounds, the way the abortion procedure was done then back in 1975, and this was perfectly legal under Roe v. Wade, all it required is a licensed physician performed the procedure in a licensed medical facility with the consent of two other physicians. This is the way the procedure was done. A strong salt, we say saline in the medical parlance, but a salt solution was injected into the mother's womb through the abdomen, and that salt solution, most of the time, killed the baby, killed this baby at 24, 26 weeks, maybe even 3 pounds, certainly capable of not only a live birth but a great life without disability. But as long as the baby was killed, and then the mother was put into labor and delivered a dead baby, that was perfectly legal. Unfortunately for this doctor back in 1975, he injected the saline and it did not kill the baby. So the next day he injected saline again, and it still did not kill the baby. So he took the mother to the operating room and performed an operation that he called a hysterotomy, that is, an opening of the uterus which really is an early, very early cesarean section. But instead of delivering that live baby, he reached his hand inside the incision and grabbed the umbilical cord and held it until that baby's heart stopped beating. There just happened to be a nurse in attendance in that operating room that said this esteemed doctor killed that baby, and there was a court decision, a lot of brouhaha, and in the final analysis, the doctor was acquitted. But from that day forward, that is when partial birth abortions, Mr. Speaker, started because nobody wanted to be in a situation, no doctor, of trying to abort a baby and inadvertently, deliberately and knowing then that they could not kill the baby because it was outside the mother's womb. So they devised this procedure of partially delivering the baby. If the baby is head first, put the patient into labor, dilate the cervix, and when that head comes out, crush the skull, or if it is a breach presentation, dilate the cervix, put the patient in labor, and when the baby is delivered to the naval, then go up inside and crush the skull and then deliver and then the baby is dead, and it is perfectly legal. That is what this is all about, and we are talking about maybe 2,000, 2,500 procedures a year out of the million legal abortions that are performed, mostly in the first trimester. Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable when I read quotes, and this happens to be a quote from a member of the other body and certainly I would not name names here tonight but this is a quote: As a result of today's ruling, the health of women who have dangerous pregnancies is now in deep jeopardy. Women who are in need of this banned procedure will be denied it, even if they risk losing their fertility, becoming paralyzed or sustaining organ damage. Mr. Speaker, the risk of any of the those things is greater, much greater if they have this procedure done. Our judiciary committee in this House and in the other body have had multiple hearings from physicians across this country that say this procedure does not need to be done to protect the health of the mother, unless you call the health of the mother anxiety over not wanting that baby. There is still an exception that this abhorrent procedure could be done to protect the life of the mother. Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to take quite this much time, and I know my colleague needs time to conclude, and I thank God for him, too. I thank God for each and every Member that has spoken here tonight, and I will remember them for the rest of my life. I will remember each one of these Members who have spoken and applauded and, yes, smiled on this great day because to me and to them this transcends any other disappointments and frustrations and aggravations that we may have had on both sides of the aisle in maybe not getting our way on a particular piece of legislation here and there. Nothing is more important than this. I want to say as I conclude, I want to say to my 9-year old identical, twin granddaughters, Allie and Hannah, who were born at 26 weeks, each weighing 1 pound 12 ounces, thank God for your mom and dad, my daughter and son-in-law, Gannon and Hank Manning, that they did not make a decision that they did not want you, even though you were so fragile. God reached down and lifted you up and now you are the beautiful love of our lives, your grandparents, Mommy and Grand Doc, and so proud as you make progress now in the second grade. I say to my grandson Hank and my brand new grandson Sabine, just 2 weeks old, your brothers, and to my two other grandchildren, of Phyllis and Jerry Collins, little Grey, two-and-a-half years old; and little Marion, 8 months old, Grand Doc is proud of you, and I know that you are proud of Grand Doc. You are proud that he stood here tonight in defense of the sanctity of life, and I know that God's hand is in all of that. I just say, as I conclude, I am blessed. We are all blessed. We are all blessed to have this opportunity in a historic moment. No, it does not ban abortion, and most of us hope eventually that there will be no need for that and that the sanctity of life, at the earliest and at the last moments, will be honored and respected. Again, I just want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks). I am proud to be his classmate. I am proud to be a colleague, and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to talk to my colleagues tonight.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Judge Gohmert, I thank you for your kind remarks; and of course you are here not to praise me but to praise God and life and the sanctity of life at the extremes, the embryo and the senior citizens as well. My colleagues, Madam Speaker, I cannot over-emphasize the point as I look at this and reference you to this next slide. No lives, no lives are thrown away. We have heard, all of our colleagues have heard people speak on this floor and say there are 400,000 of these extra throw-away embryos available for this research, and they are going to be and I have even heard people say, thrown down the toilet, that they are garbage. I have heard the expression, and I know this is appalling, Madam Speaker, but to hear the expression that it is nothing but medical waste and they are going to be thrown away anyway, I know that gives many of us and you and me and many of my colleagues chill bumps to think about that. But the point is of these 400,000, those are not all extra and scheduled for the trash can and available for the harvesting of embryonic stem cells. The fact is in April 2002, there were a total of 396,000 embryos that had been placed in storage, frozen for possible later use. Of those, and that is what this slide points out, 88 percent of these frozen embryos, in fact close to 350,000, are being held for future family building by the donors. They have not completed their family. Maybe they have not gotten pregnant yet. They have not conceived. So 88 percent are going to remain preserved in a frozen state so that hopefully these infertile couples will hopefully at some point in the future become parents. And only 2.8 percent, about 8,700 of the frozen embryos, are designated for destruction. Couples a lot of times are asked the question: Well, would you like to give this baby up for destruction so that we can get these embryonic stem cells, or would you rather just throw them away? Well, half of the people that own those embryos would say for whatever reason, maybe the same reason that folks sometimes say no, I don't want an autopsy on my loved one; or no, I don't want to donate an organ when I am in a massive automobile accident and I am brain dead. A lot of people will say, look, I don't want my embryo, my child, to be put in a blender for the sake of obtaining those embryonic stem cells. I would rather it be thrown away. So this business of 400,000 available, it is nothing near that amount. It is very important for people and our colleagues to understand and to put that in perspective. Madam Speaker, I know our time is running short. We are rapidly approaching the time that this body will be adjourning for the day, a busy day. And I have one poster in particular that I want my colleagues to take a close look at. This is the one that I am presenting now with these precious children. These were frozen embryos. These were part of the so-called medical waste that was going to be thrown away; or, indeed, put in a blender and churned up, destroying these little lives. Thank God the ones on this poster were adopted by infertile couples, with the permission from the couples who owned those embryos. These are what we refer to as the snowflake babies. Last year when we were debating this issue, many of them, the parents went out of their way to take time off work, to buy an airline ticket and fly up here with these toddlers, some months old, and some a few years old. And I saw at the White House, as President Bush vetoed this bill last year, he was holding a set of snowflake baby twins. Indeed, throw away medical waste. I think not. These little children on this poster look a lot like my six grandchildren. I have three precious granddaughters and three precious grandsons, and I think how precious life is. We need to think about this very, very closely. I want to ask my colleagues this question, just like the survey, the polling done and you ask the question in the right way: some of us are pro-life. Some of us are pro-choice. Some of us are Democrats, some of us are Republicans. But if we have an opportunity to obtain embryonic stem cells, maybe they do have more potential than the adult stem cells. I don't know. I do know they have this problem with tumor formation. But if the argument is our hands have been tied, although we have funded embryonic stem cell research on those existing cell lines, but if the opportunity is there and we considered that tonight and talked about Dr. Atala's work on obtaining nearly embryonic, nearly totipotential cells, we also can do things like biopsy an embryo, that is called pregenetic diagnosis, and we do that all the time now. If an embryo is from a family that has a congenital defect like hemophilia or muscular dystrophy, you can biopsy that embryo to make sure that condition does not exist. If you can do that without harming the embryo, and it has been done thousands of times, we ought to be able to do the same technique and get embryonic stem cells. It takes some research. If we can continue to fund scientists like Dr. Stice at the University of Georgia in regard to using those essentially brain dead embryos that don't have any potential for further life and get those embryonic stem cells, we don't have to get into this argument, Madam Speaker, between the pro-life and pro-choice community. Isn't that, my colleagues, the way to go? I hope there is an opportunity this year in the 110th Congress to vote on that bill and give the President something that he can sign and get back to us and make it law.

Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman would yield, and I really so much appreciate him pointing that out. I think what the gentleman is saying is, no tumor formation, no collateral damage, no destruction of life, lives that could be adopted and become a ``snowflake'' baby, we have a slide later on to show. But I wanted to mention to my colleague, and I like his comments on this. In addition to the work that Dr. Atala is doing at Wake Forest, and I didn't know this, this is the last year, I say to the gentleman from Texas, but in my great State of Georgia, at the University of Georgia, a Ph.D. researcher, Dr. Steve Stice, has a project whereby embryonic stem cells from embryos can be obtained if it is an embryo that once it is rethawed and there is maybe an attempt to place that in a mother's womb, but if you look at it under the microscope, he can tell if that embryo has the potential for further generation. It is not dead, but you might equate it to, say, a person who has no brainwave activity, the other extreme of life, and has no chance of recovery. Well, Dr. Stice, his research would be to obtain those embryonic stem cells from those embryos so you wouldn't be destroying human life. And I yield back to my colleague because I wanted to make him aware of that. Our Senator, our junior Senator, who is so prescient and has a way of solving problems when you've got a divide like this, Senator Johnny Isakson, along with Senator Norm Coleman from Minnesota, introduced a bill in the Senate last week and it passed overwhelmingly. I think it got 75 votes. And I hope that we will have an opportunity to vote on that bill in this House if, Madam Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, will allow that to come to voice for a vote; because I can't see why any Member, Republican or Democrat, pro-life, pro-choice, would not want to support that, where it is a win-win situation. I yield back.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina who I said represents Wake Forest University and Dr. Atala and his team there. And her closing comments, Madam Speaker, segue really into my next slide in this poster that I've got. What Ms. Foxx said is we have to not go down that slippery slope. We have to consider the collateral damage of what we do. We have to be very, very careful that we are not playing God. And I say that with all honest, sincerity, that we have an opportunity to do ethical stem cell research; and by that I simply mean balancing life and science. Ms. Foxx talked about a number of the techniques. She talked about obtaining stem cells from umbilical cord blood. She talked about obtaining adult stem cells from bone marrow or from blood. And she talked about the many successes utilizing research with adult stem cell research. And the cures, I think she mentioned 70 different diseases, including Type I diabetes. There was just a study from Brazil where 13 of 15 Type I juvenile, we call it, it is not always in children, but a lot of children get juvenile diabetes, the severe kind of diabetes that almost always requires insulin therapy, and even with good control, leads to devastating complications, such as blindness, kidney failure, the need for a kidney transplant. Thirteen out of 15 of these Type I diabetics in Brazil who were treated with adult stem cells were found to be months later developing insulin on their own. These stem cells went to the pancreas and became the so-called islet cells, and now 13 out of 15 of those patients are not having to use insulin at all to control their diabetes. So some of the ethical ways. And then of course we talked about Dr. Atala, who happens also to be chairman of the Department of Urology and operates every day on what you might call routine things, but at the same time is spending a lot of his effort running the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, where they are studying ways to obtain, through amniotic fluid, cells that are neither completely embryonic nor completely adult, but they have qualities that are very similar to both, in being similar to embryonic cells, those that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle mostly, although some Republicans supported the Castle-DeGette as well, the need to use these cells. Well, if you can get the amniotic cells, they can double every 36 hours just like the embryonic cells that we are talking about in destroying a human embryo. But also, similar to an adult cell, they do not form tumors. And that is one of the huge problems that the research on embryonic cells has resulted in. How do you solve that problem? Well, with Dr. Atala's research, we wouldn't have that problem. These cells would double every 36 hours, and they don't form tumors. The best of both worlds. I see my colleague from Texas has joined us. He is a fellow insomniac, although it is a little earlier out in Texas and maybe his constituents are still up, certainly some are in California; but it is great to have him with me tonight. At this point I would like to yield to the gentleman from east Texas and let him join in on this very, very important topic.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.