Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, on that point for just a second, Dr. Atala's research in regard to amniotic fluid cells, which that study was published just this January of 2007 in the journal Nature Biotechnology, was an amazing accomplishment in what Dr. Atala says. And I know this, as an OBGYN physician from the great State of Georgia in my prior life where I practiced for 26 years, delivering 5,200 babies. What Dr. Atala is doing, you can obtain this amniotic fluid from a pregnant mom, pregnant woman, in the process of trying to make sure that she is not carrying a baby that has a genetic defect. A lot of times this is done if a woman is a little older. She is not old at age 35 but is considered a little older for childbearing and the increased risk of genetic defects. So a lot of women do have this amniocentesis done. And if not an amniocentesis, a biopsy actually can be taken of a part of the placenta through the cervix as early as 9 weeks of the pregnancy or obtain the amniotic fluid with a very fine needle as early as 10 or 11 weeks of the pregnancy. So I just wanted to point that out to my colleague that we are just talking about a few weeks more mature in getting those cells, which are almost embryonic because they are so early.

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be before my colleagues on the House floor this evening to talk about a hugely important issue that we will be dealing with once again this week in all probability. As you know, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, I am talking about the issue of stem cell research. Last week the Senate was in session, and once again the bill that passed on the House floor in the 109th Congress, the Castle-DeGette bill, which would require Federal funding, taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research that was obtained by the destruction of the so-called ``throwaway embryos'' from infertility assisted reproductive technology clinics that couples say they did not want, that these were extras. Well, that bill that passed last year on this House floor passed the Senate last week, and, Madam Speaker, we will be seeing that bill very soon once again. So, I want to be present tonight to talk about this very, very important issue with my colleagues and anyone that has an opportunity within ear distance of what we are speaking about tonight to help bring an understanding to this issue and to try to convince my colleagues that we can do this; that is, we can do stem cell research as we have been doing over the last several years. Since President Bush's first term in office way back in 2001, we have been spending Federal tax dollars on stem cell research. But what the President said in August of 2001 was that he would not allow Federal tax dollars, your tax dollars, my tax dollars, those of my family, my parents, my constituents, to be used to fund stem cell research that resulted in the destruction of a human life. What President Bush did say back then was that embryonic stem cell research that was ongoing, that was a result of cell lines developed from human embryos that had already been destroyed could continue; and Federal tax dollars could be used through the NIH to give grants to these researchers as they applied to use these existing cell lines, which indeed did come from the destruction of human life, as I believe life begins at conception, in these embryos that were taken from fertility clinics. In fact, Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize that point because it is so important that our colleagues understand that, especially new Members on both sides of the aisle that weren't here for the debate last year, that got the impression maybe they and their constituents felt that this administration and the former leadership of this Congress in the 109th was spending nothing, was refusing to fund stem cell research whether it was adult or embryonic. But the facts are really brought home by this first slide, Madam Speaker, that I want to present. And this is basically what it says: Our government invested in lifesaving research. The Federal Government has spent $161 million since 2003 on human embryonic stem cell research. As I pointed out, Madam Speaker, the President was willing to allow that funding to continue on those embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created. And there was some 60 of those stem cell lines where researchers could get a grant from the Federal Government and begin that important research on these stem cells. Before that, no administration, no President, at no time in the 40 years that the Democrats controlled the Congress, certainly not during President Clinton's 8 years, was one dime of Federal tax dollars spent on embryonic stem cell research. Some was spent on adult stem cell research. But when it was suggested by scientists that maybe the embryonic stem cells had more potential to develop into a lot of different tissues and ultimately organs that could possibly help people with diseases, and we have all seen those television spots with celebrities in some cases, Michael J. Fox, who is suffering severely from Parkinson's disease. The life of Christopher Reeves, we all know about the tragic injury and the quadriplegic state that he suffered in for many years before his tragic death last year. When you see those things, you know, you think, well, we are not doing anything. But the truth is, and it is very important for us to understand this, that under President Bush, indeed, since 2003, some $608 million has been spent on stem cell research. And a lot of that, as I point out, because of those previous embryonic stem cell lines, a lot of it has been on embryonic stem cell research, and he is the only President that allowed that. Now, we have great Members in both bodies and on both sides of the aisle. And I have a tremendous amount of respect, Madam Speaker, for the two Members in this body, in this House, that felt that because maybe these embryonic stem cell lines that were previously created that were being used for research would exhaust themselves, that we would use up all those stem cells. We certainly haven't, at this moment. I think there is still 20 of those stem cell lines in existence. Some were found to be contaminated. Originally, I think, back in 2001, we estimated that there were 60 of those lines, and now we are down to 20. So I can understand the concern that maybe we would exhaust that supply. So Congressman Castle, a Republican Member, Congresswoman DeGette, a Democratic Member, along with the Senate colleagues, Senator Reid, Senator Kennedy, Senator Specter, in a bipartisan way, felt the same thing. So these two bills came before the respective bodies in the 109th Congress. We did pass the Castle-DeGette bill, but the Senate failed to deal with that, until finally it was decided that they would go ahead and pass a companion bill, and then my colleagues, of course, know that the President, as he had said all along that he would veto that bill, and he did. But what I want to make sure that the new Members understand is that people like myself, who are pro-life Members of this body, we support stem cell research, with only one exception. We don't support research that requires killing of a human life. And last year, I, along with Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, the gentleman from Maryland, a Ph.D. physiologist who knows more about this subject, I guess, than anybody in this body, and we worked together to develop an alternative bill that would allow us, we the Federal Government, to fund research programs that would use embryonic-like cells to get to the same point without destroying human life. And some of the things that were suggested in the Bartlett-Gingrey bill that we voted on, in this House, in the 109th Congress, were to obtain an embryonic cell from a stem cell from an embryo without destroying that embryo, to be able to, essentially, biopsy with a fine needle and obtain those embryonic cells without killing or even harming in any way that little embryo which had the potential, of course, for human life. We didn't want to destroy that life. And this was part of the Roscoe Bartlett-Gingrey bill. And we felt that this was sort of a win/win situation, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, because we would be able to get to the same point without any collateral damage. And of course the collateral damage that I am talking about is the destruction of a human life. And I want to go through a few of the posters that we have, and I want to point out, Madam Speaker, that a lot of our colleagues who are in support of destroying those human embryos, kind of indiscriminately, so that we can obtain the embryonic cells that hopefully can lead to cure of some of these diseases that I mentioned, would say in their argument, look, 75, 80 percent of the American people are in favor of this. How could we deny that overwhelming show of support when you ask the American people do they want us to do this, and therefore, we think we should, and we are going to pass this bill, over the President's objection. Well, Madam Speaker, as we all know, in regard to a response, it really sort of depends on how you ask the question. If you ask the question, and maybe a person sitting at home gets a telephone call of a pollster, and they have been watching television, and they have just seen a clip of Michael J. Fox and the ravages of Parkinson's disease, or Christopher Reeves, as he sits there with the breathing machine, struggling to talk to the American people about his struggles, and then they get that call, and it is a pollster and they say, would you be in favor of using embryonic stem cells in research to help cure these diseases? And of course that individual may also just happen to have a family member who is in the nursing home suffering from something like Alzheimer's is an example. And sure, I mean, Madam Speaker, if I were one of those individuals that got that call, I would say, absolutely. Absolutely. So I am surprised the number was only 75 percent. I would think it would be 95 percent, if you phrase the question in that way. Now, on the other hand, if you said, and you prefaced that with, would you be in favor of your tax dollars going to fund this research on embryonic stem cells that might help cure one of these devastating diseases, then no doubt that number would go down a little bit. I don't know how much, but no doubt. When you start saying, well, now, it is your money. It is not somebody else's money, in the abstract. It is your money. Now, do you want to spend your money, the numbers would not be as high. But in this, the point I am getting to, Madam Speaker, in this next slide, if you ask the question this way, and this is the only fair way to ask this scientific question, say to the individual, stem cells are the basic cells from which all of a person's tissues and organs develop. Congress is considering the question of Federal funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells. Do you support or oppose using your Federal tax dollars for such experiments? That is the question that should be asked. And when it was asked, in a poll conducted by the International Communications Research in May of 2006, this is what the survey said. Those who support that, 38 percent. Those who oppose it, 47.8 percent. So, Madam Speaker, that really is the crux of what we are talking about in regard to, do the American people support research using embryonic stem cells that result in the wanton, indiscriminate destruction of a human embryo, the so- called extra, and I will get into that point later in the discussion, extra, throwaway, nobody wants them, little babies. And if you believe as I do that life begins at conception, these embryos are several days to a week, maybe even 10 days old, long past the moment of conception. We are blessed tonight, my colleagues, to have one of our colleagues join me in this discussion. And she just happens to represent a wonderful district in North Carolina that includes the Wake Forest Baptist University and Medical Center. And I want her to share with us some of the research that is going on there at Wake Forest and the Wake Forest School of Medicine. I had an opportunity, Madam Speaker, as I was returning to Washington yesterday, to stop at Wake Forest and to visit with Dr. Anthony Atala, who is the president of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University, and to spend about 3 hours with Dr. Atala, to have an opportunity to meet with Dr. Hatch, the president of Wake Forest University, and Dr. Richard Dean who is the dean of the medical school. And with the 150, they weren't all there, but quite a few were, Ph.D. and M.D. scientists that are working there at that great university, and some of the things that they are doing to give us an opportunity to obtain pluripotent, almost embryonic-like stem cells that will help us do this kind of research that our colleagues want us to continue, and the President wants to fund, with no collateral damage. So at this point I want to yield to my colleague, Virginia Foxx from North Carolina, to tell us a little bit more about that program and take as much time as she wants. And we will continue our dialogue. And I yield now to my good friend, Virginia Foxx.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today as an original co-sponsor of the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. I join my colleagues from the Science and Technology Committee, Mr. Wu, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Hall and Mr. Ehlers, in introducing this important bill that will ensure our Nation's technological competitiveness for decades to come. The President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) provides a foundation to keep our country competitive in the ever-expanding global marketplace. The Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act plays an important role in fulfilling this initiative by reauthorizing the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST. NIST labs serve almost every Federal agency and U.S. industry by providing reliable and dependable standards, measurements, and certification services. As Congress looks to the future of the technology industry in this country, NIST research will prove to be indispensable in the maturation of cutting-edge basic research in becoming successful commercial products. Emerging fields such as nanotechnology and bioengineering are dependent on scientifically-based industrial measurements and standards to see that advanced laboratory research can make that leap into practical industrial applications. I recently visited some of NIST's laboratories and was amazed by the fascinating and vital work its scientists perform. H.R. 1868 includes 3-year authorization levels for NIST's laboratories which are consistent with the ACI's goal to double the nation's investment in physical science research by 2017. The Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act also authorizes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program-a cost-sharing program that provides technical and business assistance to small and medium- sized manufacturers. This assistance has a proven track record in the manufacturing industry to help companies remain competitive in the global marketplace by improving productivity and efficiency. In addition, this legislation authorizes the Technology Innovation Program that provides grants that encourage the development of high-risk, innovative technologies that will provide widespread economic benefits to companies across the United States. I thank Chairman Wu for incorporating our priorities for NIST into this comprehensive authorization bill and I look forward to working with my Science Committee colleagues to ensure quick action on this important bill.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Emily Jennette, a teacher at Sawyer Road Elementary School in Marietta, Georgia, who was recently recognized as our State's Teacher of the Year. This award could not have gone to a more deserving candidate. Ms. Jennette is an exceptional educator, praised by her fellow teachers for her innovative teaching techniques, a commitment to learning and an outstanding ability to engage her students. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both Ms. Jennette and another Cobb County teacher who was a top 10 finalist, Ms. Jennifer Dawson of Lost Mountain Middle School. Educators are among our communities' most valuable assets. Their gifts impact students in the classroom, and their lessons follow our children throughout life. Georgia is fortunate to have teachers like Emily Jennette educating our children, and I know she will make our State proud at the National Teacher of the Year competition. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating Ms. Jennette and all the teachers who help mold our children's lives every day.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Congressman Price, I thank you so much for letting me join with you and the Truth Squad in talking about the real truth in regard to what burdens are on the American people, particularly on this day, tax day, April 17. And it reminds me that there is another date coming up pretty soon, and I think that is on April 22, and that is called tax freedom day. And that day gets later and later in the calendar year each and every year. That is how long a person has to work to pay their tax burden, not only to the Federal Government but to local and State and the entire tax burden. Almost a third of the year, Madam Speaker, people have to work to pay the tax burden. So we in the Republican Party feel very strongly that we need to cut taxes, simplify taxes, lower taxes. And we can do that, and we have done that. We did it in 2001, we did it in 2003. And while we heard from our friends on the other side of the aisle in the previous hour, the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, in regard to the costs to the revenue stream of the tax cuts, saying that we only cut taxes for people making more than $400,000 a year, when in fact, Madam Speaker, everybody who pays taxes got a tax cut under the tax cut provisions that this President and the former majority, the Republican Party, enacted for the American people. And while, when you crunch the numbers, that was estimated to cost $1.3 trillion, or $130 billion each and every year over a 10-year period of time, because supposedly you would be taking in less revenue, in fact it stimulated the economy; and over a 2\1/2\ year period of time, the amount of revenue that came into the Federal Government actually increased by $250 billion. So our good friends, the Blue Dogs, play a little bit loose with the truth in regard to their calculus. And really it is not calculus, Madam Speaker, it is simple math. The gentlemen that spoke, the four or five of them in the previous hours, our friends, the Blue Dogs, they would make great red dogs. They come from States that the so-called Blue Dog Democrats are traditionally conservative, they are fiscally conservative. They are conservative on social issues. And we had the gentleman from Arkansas, we had a Member from Tennessee, we had a Member from Indiana, we had a Member from Ohio. It doesn't surprise me that they would be sounding like Republicans, because many of them represent Republican-leaning, typically traditional districts. And when we earn back our majority, Madam Speaker, I think that the Blue Dogs that we are hearing from, the five by tonight, there are a total of 43, many of them would make great red dogs; and I look forward to the day that they join us. But, Madam Speaker, in the meantime, I think that I need to talk to them about their math a little bit. They spent some time talking about the debt and the fact that all of this money that we have had to borrow, this $8.8 trillion worth of debt, comes from foreign countries. The gentleman from Arkansas listed, I think, the top nine. And they want to imply that all of the debt is money that we have had to borrow from rogue nations, if you will. But they are not rogue nations. But the point I want to make, Madam Speaker, is that only about 25 percent of that debt is held by any foreign nation, whether we are talking about Germany or France or Spain or Portugal or, yes, China or India. Seventy-five percent of that debt is held by my mom and my dad and our Blue Dog grandparents and corporate America and the United States citizens. Americans borrow or lend that money to the United States Government because they have faith in the full credit of this great country. So this implication that only rogue nations are willing to borrow money or lend money to this country is totally ludicrous. And if the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend and colleague, Dr. Price, will indulge me for a few minutes, I want to also point out another very, very misleading figure. They take that debt, that $8.8 trillion worth of debt that has accumulated over a number of years. Don't forget, Madam Speaker, and my good friends on the other side of the aisle, they controlled this place for 40 years. And that $8.8 trillion worth of debt didn't just occur overnight. But they take 300 million people, man, woman and child, the population of this great country, and they divide it into $8.8 trillion, and they come up with $27,000 worth of debt for every man, woman and child in this country. Well, Madam Speaker, what is the gross domestic product, the wealth of this country? I think 2006, maybe would be the last figure that I have, it was about $13 trillion. So you divide that same number into the gross domestic product, you could say that the share of the wealth of this country of every man, woman and child is $44,000. So, like I say, they are playing a little loose with the numbers, and they go on and talk about this budget resolution that they have got and how they are going to balance the budget and have no deficit over a 5- year period of time and actually have a little bit of money in the bank in 2012. How do they do that, Madam Speaker? They do it by letting the tax cuts of the Republican majority and our President expire. The decrease in the marginal rate for every person that is paying taxes, the increase, the doubling of the child tax credit, the elimination, and once again, reinserting the marriage tax penalty, and that is total, when you add up every one of those tax cuts that we enacted that they intend to let expire in 2010 and 2011, it is a total, I think, and my colleague from Georgia and my other colleagues that are here tonight will agree, almost $400 billion. And I think that is the largest tax increase on the people of this country in the history of this country. So here, again, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing out the truth once again, as he does so well in the Truth Squad's discussions. And I thank him for letting me weigh in a little bit tonight. And with that I will yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Republican budget substitute, which is the most fiscally responsible budget before us today. It may not a perfect budget, but no real budget can be, because we live in a world of unlimited wants and needs but of limited resources. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Ranking Member Paul Ryan, my good friend and a fiscal conservative stalwart from Wisconsin, who has truly helped lead the way not only on the Republican budget but also on revealing the true effects of the Democrat budget and substitutes. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget, unlike those offered by the Democrats, does not, I'll repeat, the Republican budget does not raise taxes. I know these numbers have been cited many times over in this budget debate, but it is important for the American people to fully understand the impact of the new majority's budget policy on their pocketbooks. Mr. Chairman, the Democrat committee-passed budget raises taxes by almost $400 billion. The Congressional Black Caucus budget raises taxes by $711 billion. The Progressive Caucus Budget raises taxes by almost $950 billion. Three Democrat budgets, three giant tax increases--and, since baseball season is upon us, I'll say these three budgets sound like strike one, strike two, and strike three--and you know how the rest goes. However, Mr. Chairman, my Democrat colleagues don't have to strike out because they can vote for a budget that will balance in 5 years without raising taxes; they can vote for the Republican alternative.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act. This bipartisan bill was reported unanimously by the Armed Services Committee, and I am a proud, proud cosponsor, along with my friend, distinguished chairman, Mr. Skelton, and my good friend, ranking member, Mr. Hunter. Mr. Chairman, we are debating this bill today because all of us here, Democrats and Republicans, want to ensure our soldiers are receiving the high quality care for which our military is known. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, as a physician, I can tell you that access to care is critical to the health and well-being of our military, active, reserve and veteran. While it was a condition of some housing facilities at Walter Reed that led us to examine our military health care system, the fundamental problems with military medical care cannot be fixed with paint, putty and plaster. I am relieved to know the run-down rooms have been refurbished, but I am proud that this bill starts addressing the system's fundamental problem of overcrowding, delayed paperwork and a shortage of human capital to oversee soldiers' continuing health care and quality of life needs. Soldiers I met on a recent visit to Walter Reed were frustrated with lost medical records, dupes to forms, paperwork that took a week to make it from one office to another. This system greatly delays our soldiers' ability to meet with their doctors and to eventually, Mr. Chairman, be discharged. In fact, the average stay at Walter Reed is 350 days, and many of those days are spent as an outpatient assigned to the medical hold unit waiting for the paper trail to catch up with patient care. This legislation starts addressing these problems by giving soldiers a louder voice in their medical care. It increases the personnel assigned to each servicemember and his or her family so that our soldiers have advocates helping them set appointments and understand the prescribed course of their care. As a physician, I know that caseload greatly affects the personal attention delivered to each patient. More staff means more time for each soldier and their individual needs. Mr. Chairman, another problem facing our military health system is the difficulty personnel face when they are transitioning from active duty to the retired status, and I am pleased that this legislation includes a pilot program to examine this critical need. A fully electronic and integrated records system would allow the Department of Defense and the VA to share information in a timely fashion. I would also encourage the Department of Defense to automate all in- patient health records. We know that in the private sector switching from paper files to electronic medical records cuts down on medical errors, saves time, and saves money. Our military should fully realize these benefits as well. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to recognize that the Wounded Warrior Act fixes a process that isn't serving the best interest of our warfighters or our military medical personnel. Our military doctors and nurses are an invaluable resource for their expertise, bravery, and dedication. We want to make sure that the system benefits these heroes as well. The Wounded Warrior Assistance Act represents a significant step toward ensuring our soldiers and veterans are treated with the dignity and respect that they have earned and fully deserve, and I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this great piece of legislation.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only in strong opposition to this ``our way or the highway'' rule, but also to the underlying bill, which I believe encroaches on the constitutional principle of separation of power, particularly the President's authority as Commander in Chief. Regretfully, this rule prevents every single Member of this body, both Democrats and Republicans, from offering an amendment to an emergency wartime supplemental appropriations act, a highly unprecedented attack on the democratic process. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the majority is insistent on a force pullout from Iraq, but the language in this supplemental puts this war and the soldiers' lives on autopilot. This legislation makes a flash-point decision about the war, about our men and women on the ground, with little regard to the actual facts 6 months, a year, and indeed 17 months from now. It looks like ``Magic 8-Ball'' foreign policy. Last night, Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, it was not made in order, but it would have required this Congress to reevaluate the situation in Iraq at each of these timelines in the so-called Murtha language. So whatever the benchmarks, then we would have to come back and vote again, clean up or down vote, whether or not we want to bring the troops home. Mr. Speaker, that is especially important at the drop-dead date of August of 2008, when this bill basically says no matter what, the troops come home, even if we have got the bad guys on the run. I think every Member of this body would want to support an amendment like this, so that we would once again be able to vote and reconsider, considering the situation on the ground. So this legislation sets a dangerous precedent, and I respectfully ask my colleagues, oppose the rule, oppose the underlying bill. Let's work, both Republican and Democrat alike, let's produce a supplemental that will actually pass this House, pass the Senate and be signed by the President. Do right by our American soldiers, and our people and the people in Iraq.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. And the same thing, as I said at the outset, anywhere from 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants we estimate, and we hear talk about the need for a comprehensive bill that would include letting them pay a little fine and fess up and get a clear ID card, identify themselves, and all of a sudden become a permanent legal resident on a track to citizenship. Each one of those 20 million then could start this chain migration.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening on behalf of the Immigration Reform Caucus of this House of Representatives. Hopefully, as we go forward with the Immigration Reform Caucus in a bipartisan fashion, and our new chairman hopefully will be joining me during this hour, and that is Congressman Brian Bilbray from the great State of California who is determined to make the Immigration Reform Caucus of this House a bipartisan organization, and I really look forward to that change. As we reach out to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats, I think we can solve this problem of immigration, and in particular, illegal immigration. We have to do that, Mr. Speaker. This is a hugely important issue. It is an issue to our security, it is an issue to our economy, and it is an issue to this great country, this sovereign Nation, the United States. Tonight I come to my colleagues to talk about a problem not regarding illegal immigration, we may have an opportunity tonight to discuss some of those issues which are so important and which we have worked so hard on in the 109th Congress and hopefully we will continue to do so in the 110th Congress; but my concerns tonight will be addressed toward a legal immigration problem, Mr. Speaker. Let me repeat that, legal. That is a situation that we refer to as chain migration. Let me try to explain that to my colleagues. I have here to my left a first slide, if you will, in this presentation. As we look at it, Mr. Speaker, at first glance those in the audience tonight might think, gee, Gingrey is up here with a chart of his high school or college chemistry periodic table; or somebody else may say, no, that is his grandchildren's Pac-Man game. It is a confusing chart to look at, but I am going to hopefully be able to, in a short period of time, to simplify this rather arcane, complex looking first slide. But this really is what this whole problem, this legal immigration problem is about, this chain migration issue, Mr. Speaker. If my colleagues will focus their attention at the bottom of this first slide, I point to this very prominent kiosk, this icon that would be a legal permanent resident in this country. That individual, man or woman, could be here through any one of several ways of entering this country legally. It could be a skilled worker. And that is indeed why we have an immigration policy, to make our country better, to bring in skilled individuals from countries throughout the world, as we have always done since we started this country. That is the whole purpose of being able to bring individuals in based on what they can contribute. Certainly we want to make their lives better as well, but we want them to be able to contribute to our great Nation and enjoy the privileges of citizenship eventually. So this individual comes, maybe as one of those legal immigrants, as a skilled worker; or possibly this first person that I am going to refer to at the bottom of the slide is a part of somebody's nuclear family, maybe it is the wife of a legal permanent resident who has already come; or maybe it is a minor child who has grown up and become of age to marry and have a spouse; or possibly this is an individual, a third category, who has sought asylum in this great country. And certainly that is what the Statue of Liberty is all about, that is what the inscription of the bottom of Lady Liberty says in regard to opening our arms to the oppressed and the people that need safety in this great country. So any one of these three categories, Mr. Speaker, of legal permanent residence in this country can start this chain migration. Which clearly, clearly our country never intended that effect. What happens is this legal permanent resident is able to bring in his spouse or her spouse. And they can legally bring in their minor children. And let's say, based on the current fertility rate south of our border, our southern border, it is three children, three minor children. Now, that is one individual that, by virtue of bringing in an additional skilled worker under the quota for that particular country, has brought in four additional people by virtue of genealogy. And this is, of course, a nuclear family so far. We are talking then about a nuclear family, a husband, a wife and their three children. Now, once the husband and wife become citizens, then the real problem begins, because at that point then each of the husband and wife can bring in their parents. This is perfectly legal to do this. So there are an additional, assuming that both parents of both the husband and wife are still living, which is very likely, maybe it is a man and a woman on each side who are in their late forties or early fifties. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, again, this one individual that is in this country legally, as a legal permanent resident, hopefully has become a citizen. At that point, then all of his siblings and all of his wife's siblings can come into this country. And that is where the chain really takes off, because you repeat this over and over again. And at the end of 17 years, a short of 17 years and two generations, what you end up with under this insanity of legal chain migration is that one legal permanent resident who was brought into this country as a skilled worker, as an individual seeking asylum from a country in which they are suffering the devastation of oppression, or it happens to be a spouse of a legal permanent resident, that one person in a short span of 17 years can bring in 273 people, Mr. Speaker; 273 people. And that counts against the quota for that country. So this is the problem, Mr. Speaker, that I think a lot of people just don't realize. We worry about a porous border. We worry about the fact that there are anywhere from 12 to 20 million illegal residents, immigrants in this country, many of them, of course, most of them probably are hardworking, God-fearing, good people, moms, dads, good families, and they are trying to do the right thing. And the only thing that they have committed, of course, is coming into this country illegally. But it is a huge, huge problem for us, as I said at the outset, in regard to the stress and strain on our economy, on our infrastructure, on our safety net programs, on our public school systems. But here we have something that is part of our legal permission to let people come into this country, and then bring in 273 additional extended family members. Not, Mr. Speaker, what we originally intended. I want to go back and talk about the Jordan Commission. In the early nineties, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan from Texas, a very, very distinguished Member of this body, chaired that commission to study immigration reform and clearly said as part of the recommendations, there were a number of those recommendations, only some of which, Mr. Speaker, were implemented, but one of them was to say very specifically that it should only be a nuclear family, not this situation where because of this chain effect, that in a very short period of time of a couple of generations, or really a short period of 17 years, we end up with 273 people. And they may be good, hardworking, skilled men and women that can contribute to our society, can make their lives better, can make our lives better. But it is really not based on that, it is based totally on genealogy, by virtue of being related in some extended way, first, second, third cousins, aunts, uncles, grandfather or grandmother and on and on and on. And what that does, other than just overwhelming the number of legal permanent residents who come into this country from a specific country on a yearly basis, indeed, Mr. Speaker, from Mexico to our southern border we are talking about maybe 30,000 a year, and that quota is surpassed in day one of the calendar year. So you can't say, well, it just doesn't matter; that means maybe you are going to push these skilled workers a little bit further behind in the queue, but they will get there eventually. Well, they may get there eventually, but instead of 2 or 3 years, Mr. Speaker, it may be 15 years, it may be far beyond the time that it would be any advantage to them or us for them to remain in the queue. So this is the problem. We have a solution. I have a solution for it, and I want to talk about that as we go forward. Mr. Speaker, this next slide that I have again just points out, and I hope my colleagues, I hope this writing is big enough. In case it is not for those in the back of the Chamber, I would be happy to go through it bullet by bullet. But this says ``Chain Migration Equals Inter-Generational Relocation Program.'' It gives visa priority to the cousins, to the adult children and distant relatives of legal immigrants. It creates a backlog of visa applicants. And it allows, and this is the final point on this slide, Mr. Speaker, and of course I have already alluded to these points in my opening remarks, but it allows genealogy, not job skills, not education, not English proficiency to determine who immigrates to our country. We just can't afford that. We absolutely must use common sense and go back to the Jordan Commission recommendation in regard to limiting genealogy entry into this country based not on skills at all, but on just who you happen to be related to. And I will get to that in just a few minutes. My colleague from Iowa is with us tonight. We call on him a lot, but he is always forthcoming with very, very good, useful information on many subjects, not the least of which is the issue of immigration. I am talking about Representative Steve King, my classmate. I thank him for joining me during this hour, and I look forward to his comments. I would like to go ahead and yield the floor to him now for however much time as he would like to take. We can colloquy back and forth. And I certainly appreciate him being with us this evening.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman, and I hope the gentleman will be able to stay and continue as we have a colloquy on this issue. Just by coincidence, we have the Catholic caucus here, as we have the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Iowa and myself, so we know about these large families. But to put it in perspective, in regard to numbers, Mr. Bilbray mentioned the fact that a million come into this country as permanent legal residents every year. It varies from country to country and hemisphere to hemisphere, the overall quota. And then that million additional that come in under all of the visa programs, the H-1B, et cetera, temporary agricultural workers and various skill levels, you are talking about an additional million. But from 1776 to 1976, 200 years of our country's existence, the average number of immigrants was about 250,000. So that just shows you where we are today; and of course we are not talking about the 3 or 4 million illegals if we don't close down our border and secure our border. Not close it down, secure our border. Then you are going to have 3 or 4 million illegals in addition to that. The gentleman from Iowa has been mighty quiet for the last few minutes, and I yield back to him.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank him, and I would like to do it formally. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), who is chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus in the 110th Congress. I look forward to his leadership on this caucus of the Congress, this bipartisan effort on his part. The gentleman from California certainly knows of what he speaks.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from California, the gentleman from Iowa, for being with me tonight. The hour is getting late. I appreciate their sharing their knowledge. It is so important that our colleagues do that, because we have very bright Members of this body on both sides of the aisle. We are not all experts on every issue, but we help one another. We share our knowledge. We rely on each other. I am very grateful to Mr. Bilbray and Mr. King of Iowa for being with me today, to help me talk about not just this issue of chain immigration, that's the main focus of the hour, but to discuss the overall problem of Georgia. It is a huge problem. We can't really afford to turn our backs and shut our eyes and bury our head in the sand with regard to 3 or 4 million additional people coming in every year illegally on top of those 2 million that are coming, as the gentleman from California pointed out in his earlier remarks. There is no way, this country cannot sustain that. He talked about the cost in California and their problem, indeed, as a border State, is a lot bigger than it is in the State of Georgia. Of course, their population approaches 55 million, and the population of Georgia is 9.3 million. But on a percentage basis, we have a huge problem in Georgia as well, maybe fourth or fifth number percentage- wise of illegal immigrations of any State in this country. I think the last count in Georgia was about 750,000. We have got a problem. Certainly, we are a great country. I think that we have done some great things in the history of this Nation. Indeed in 1969, we put a man on the Moon. If we can do that, we can solve this problem. We just need to have the will. I think my colleagues are helping bring that to the attention of the Members of this House and this Congress, both House and Senate, to the administration, to the American people. I like it when we talk during these times to our colleagues in a bipartisan way and say that, look, we can do this together. We all worry about who has got the power and who is in control, and who is in the majority, and who is the Speaker, and who are the committee chairs, and who is the next President. Of course, that will be upon us pretty soon. But in the meantime, there are so many things that we can do in a bipartisan way and really pat ourselves on the back, because I don't think our constituents care whether the Democrats solve this problem or the Republicans solve this problem. They want us to do it in a unified way. We have got such a few more on the Democrats side of the aisle in this 110th, a few more on our side of the aisle in the 109th back to 1994, these things go back and forth. But we can't let that tie our hands and keep us from going forward and getting things done for the American people. I know that my colleagues that are here with me tonight, and I think all the colleagues of this 435-Member body would hopefully say, right on, Gingrey, we agree with you on that.

Mr. GINGREY. You know who else would be pleased, and that is the employers in this country, and a lot of the industries. In Georgia, I mean we have got agriculture, we have the poultry industry, we have the carpet industry. We all have the homebuilding industry in every State, and I know that most of my friends that are in those businesses pay good wages, they pay good benefits, they are treating their employees in a compassionate way. In return, they are getting a heck of a day's work for their wages that they pay, and I think they would welcome, I think that the employers would welcome. I know Representative King, in a bill that he introduced in the last Congress and has championed in regard to an identification system that is foolproof, and we can do that, we can have a tamper-proof, biometric identification card. And I think our employers, and I have talked to many of them, and I commend them, but there may be a few that are paying low wages and gaming the system. You always have that problem. But we will ferret them out. At the same time, kudos to those who are playing by the rules and doing the right thing.

Mr. GINGREY. There is no question about that.

Mr. GINGREY. The point the gentleman from Iowa is making is that we have really tried hard in this body to address this problem. We on this side of the aisle, when we were in control and had the majority in the 109th, felt very strongly that first and foremost to solve the problem and ultimately decide what to do with the 20 million that are estimated to be here illegally, is to stop the hemorrhaging. As a physician member, I use that expression a lot, having been a surgeon in my previous life, OB/GYN physician, but you have to stop the bleeding. If you sit there and let the patient continue to bleed, and that is analogous to the porous borders, the 3 or 4 million that continue to come in every year, in addition to the 2 million that the gentleman from California was talking about earlier, then the patient is going to die. That patient, as the lifeblood seeps out of us, is the United States of America. So it is so important to do the things that we have done, tried to do in regard to Mr. Sensenbrenner's legislation. He was a champion in regard to the REAL ID Act. Basically the REAL ID Act was just in response to the request of the survivors of the 9/11 victims. As they testified before the 9/11 Commission and made those recommendations, 41 or so specific recommendations, one of the most important ones was to say you have got States that issue driver's licenses without requiring any proof of legal residency. The 9/11 hijackers, 19 of them I think, had something like 53, a total in the aggregate of 53 legal issued driver's licenses from some 10 or 12 States. So basically what we said is, look, we can't tell you, we the Federal Government can't tell the States how to run their motor vehicle department and how they issue driver's licenses and to whom and how long and how much you pay for driver's licenses, what age you have to be, whether you have to take driver's ed or not. That is a State prerogative, certainly. But if they do not have proof of legal residence, not citizenship, because a permanent legal resident certainly can be granted a driver's license, then they can't use that license from that State for Federal purposes, like getting on an airplane and blowing it to smithereens or using it as a guided missile. I see Mr. Speaker is tapping me down. I didn't realize, I was having so much fun with my colleague from California, the chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, that all of a sudden our time has expired. I appreciate his patience and indulgence. I continue to promote the Nuclear Family Protection Act. Let's all get behind it and thank you.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I want to move back now for just a moment and focus again on the solution to this problem of chain immigration, and we will get into further discussion of some of the many things this Congress, and the 109th Congress when we were in the majority and led this great House of Representatives, some of the many good things that have been done in regard to controlling illegal immigration. But let me just for the moment, before my colleagues some possibly have to leave, refocus on this issue of chain migration, Mr. Speaker, because we have presented the problem. We have spent maybe 20, 25, 30 minutes talking about the problem of chain migration, the one person bringing in 273 others, not based on skill, strictly being, I guess, based on the luck of your birthright, geneology, and how inappropriate that is and how we cannot afford to continue to do this. We have a solution. But Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to call my colleagues' attention to this next slide, and again, it depicts on this scale of justice, as we have here in the middle of this slide, on the one side you have an imbalance, too much emphasis, too much weight in regard to the second cousin of an immigrant, i.e., chain migration. On the other side, however, not weighing so heavily in this scale of this balance of justice is the skilled laborer waiting to emigrate into this country. This is what this hour is mainly about, Mr. Speaker, that we need to correct this. We need to get back to what Congresswoman Barbara Jordan recommended to this House back in the early 1990s as she chaired the Commission on Immigration Reform. Basically, this is what she said, Mr. Speaker, in this next slide: Proposed tripartite immigration system, legal immigration. That basically, as I said at the outset of the hour, people come to this country first and foremost maybe as a skill-based worker, skill-based admission; or possibly on the far side of the slide, come in as a refugee for humanitarian reasons, a humanitarian admission; and then, finally, the nuclear family admissions that Congresswoman Jordan, the distinguished lady from the great State of Texas talked about, nuclear family admissions, Mr. Speaker. That is the solution to this problem, and how we got away, how we did not follow her recommendation, there were a number of things that were recommended that were enacted by this body, but we missed the most important, and that is in regard to nuclear family admissions. This print is far too small for my colleagues to see, even in the front of the room, so I want to point out, under nuclear family, the first priority would be spouses and minor children of United States citizens, under the nuclear family. The second priority would be parents of the United States citizens, and the third priority, as we talked about, would be spouses and minor children of legal immigrants. Of course, hopefully they will become and we want them to assimilate into our society. We want them to be part of this great country, the United States of America, and at that point of course they could bring their parents, both husband and wife, as part of this nuclear family. Mr. Speaker, in my final slide, here is the result of that. Again, this is the initial skilled worker that comes in legally. This is her husband or his wife and their three minor children. That is a total of five people, one permanent legal resident and an additional four. Now, when husband and wife become citizens of the United States, then each of them under this new Nuclear Family Act, and that is what I want to present to my colleagues tonight, the bill that I have introduced, H.R. 938, remember that number, many of you on both sides are considering signing on to this bill. Many of you already have. I think we are up over 60 at this point, and hopefully, there will be many more when they understand the magnitude of this problem that we are presenting tonight. So H.R. 938, the Nuclear Family Priority Act, taken almost verbatim from Congresswoman Barbara Jordan's recommendations back in 1990, again, a distinguished Democratic Member of this body, these two, husband and wife, when they become citizens, they can bring their parents. Assuming both parents are living, then that is four additional people, and then they in turn having become citizens can bring their parents in. There is a possibility that if the parents were divorced and remarried, that instead of two on each side, there would be four. I do not want to confuse my colleagues with another arcane slide, but basically, this is the bottom line to take home. On this slide, if all of these people came in under the Nuclear Family Priority Act, you are talking about 35 people. Chain migration, which currently is the policy, you are talking about 273 people. So, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about cutting that down by 87 percent, and that is not small change. That is a significant solution to this problem, moving in that direction to enact the Nuclear Family Priority Act. So, again, it is straightforward. I leave this slide up and let my colleagues continue to look at it. I want to yield back now to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in outrage over reports that Speaker Pelosi is threatening to revoke committee assignments and earmarks for Democrats who don't support the Iraq supplemental bill on the floor this week. Talk about a culture of corruption. This is the lowest form of politics. But, sadly, while their strong-arming is audacious and unethical, it is not surprising. We know the Democratic leadership will go to extreme measures to garner votes for this bill, not only by tying troop funding to arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal, but by peppering it with so much pork, you would think our troops needed shrimp and avocados to beat the terrorists. Mr. Speaker, it is little wonder Democratic leaders are scared to let Members vote their conscience on this bill. After all, even the Los Angeles Times calls this ``the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.'' But arm-twisting and threats have no place in this people's House, and Americans have every right to be outraged with the current leadership.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, for being with me tonight as long as he can stay. I appreciate his input, his comments. He is right on target. Statistics suggest, and this is actually from the center of the CDC in Atlanta, my home, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that about 6.2 million Americans become infected with HPV each year. Over half, now listen to this, my colleagues, over half of all sexually active men and women become infected at some time in their lives, over half of all sexually active men and women become infected at some time in their lives with the HPV virus. Now, if you do the math on that, and I think I am correct if my Georgia Tech math serves me well, that means that about 0.2 percent, 0.2, not 2 percent, but 0.2 percent of women who are actually infected with HPV virus, 16 or 18, the virus that this vaccine would prevent, even if they contract the virus, only 0.2 percent. Well, I said at the outset of the discussion that accounts to, in this country about 9,700 new cases of cervical cancer each year and over 3,000 deaths. Even though it's a small, small number, it has significance, clearly. But you have to ask yourself if that would warrant vaccinating mandatorily every little 11-year-old girl in every public school system in all 50 States of this country. I don't have the number, how many little girls that would be; but I will tell you one thing, it's far more than this number. Then there are some other things that we can discuss in regard to risk and adverse reactions, even though the FDA, and I don't disagree with the decision, the trials that show this vaccine is safe, but yet it has only been on the market for less than a year. All of a sudden, the big experimental model is going to be my granddaughters and your daughters all across this country. I think that is absolute insanity. At this time, I want to yield to my good friend from New Jersey, my classmate, Representative Scott Garrett, for his comments.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. As I was pointing out in regard to this annual checkup, it is not just for the Pap smear and for screening for cervical cancer, but also for a complete wellness examination in women to detect very early breast cancer, a small lump that maybe the patient cannot detect or that is not picked up on a mammogram. But the opportunity is so invaluable to screen for not only cervical cancer, but for colon cancer and breast cancer. So the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important than that periodic checkup for adult women to have every 1 or 2 years to make sure that if they do come in contact with something like HPV or any other sexually transmitted disease, you are going to be able to treat that and treat it successfully. Cervical cancer is not something that a person is exposed to or the causative agent like human papilloma virus, it is not an exposure 1 month and cervical cancer the next month or 6 months later or 1 year later, or maybe in many instances not even 5 years later. It goes through, thank goodness, a very slow progression, and there is great opportunity to treat at various stages and to treat successfully. But clearly, the earliest detection when there is just a slight abnormality is the best opportunity to treat. And, of course, with this introduction of this vaccine, which I highly recommend, but not on a mandatory basis and not be forced upon our 11-year-old, as I pointed out, daughters and granddaughters, not my granddaughters, this is wrong. It is the government interfering between the doctor, the parents, and the patient. And it seems to me that it is such common sense that when I introduced this bill; and I want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I am soliciting cosponsors, and that list is growing every day. I want my colleagues to understand that what this bill does is simply state this: If you force your youngsters, your 11-year-olds in whatever State we might be talking about, maybe my own State of Georgia, hopefully they wouldn't do that, but if legislation is passed, and the Governor approves of it, then my bill says the Federal Government will not participate in the cost of those vaccines that are forced on our young children either through the Medicaid program or the SCHIP program, the childhood vaccination program, the Federal program. All these are wonderful programs, these safety net programs. I am a very strong advocate of that, of continuing things like SCHIP, to even strengthen it. And, parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, my State of Georgia with their Peach Care program, that is what SCHIP is referred to in Georgia, they have done such a wonderful job of seeking out those children that don't have insurance and covering them, and I commend my colleagues in the Georgia General Assembly, I commend my Governor, Governor Sonny Perdue, for doing such a great job. But I think they would agree with me and they would agree with my friend from New Jersey and my friend from Ohio, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Jordan, that it is inappropriate expenditure of dollars to take a shotgun approach and force children who have a right to a public education, indeed they are paying for it through their property taxes in most States in this country, and then to say to them you can't enroll in the fifth or sixth grade in middle school because you haven't had this vaccine. It is totally inappropriate. And that is not just this Member's opinion, it is the opinion of all those cosponsors who have signed on to H.R. 1153. Mr. Speaker, I have got a few charts that I wanted to show. This first one, the American College of Pediatricians and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are both opposed to any legislation which would require HPV vaccination for school attendance. We have already talked about the vaccine being approved last June and the studies that were done, and it is approved for females age 9 to 26. But what they don't know yet, and I have talked to the company that manufactured Gardasil, they say that they really don't know how long the vaccine will last and how much immunity will be given. They think about 5 years, but they are not sure. Maybe it will last longer. Maybe when they do blood studies 5 years later, they will find that the antibody level against this type 16 and 18 HPV virus is high enough that the person doesn't need a booster. But like tetanus shots, of course we know that very typically, the same thing with hepatitis, sometimes these vaccines, the immunity will subside, and the patient is once again at risk, and they will have to get another shot. So if the vaccine gives immunity for 5 years, and you give it to every single 11-year-old, I would say 99.99 percent of whom are not sexually active, and you spend $500 either through their own insurance program or out of Mom and Dad's pocket or subsidized through the Federal Government, Medicare, Medicaid; you give them that shot and it lasts 5 years, and let's just assume it wears off by the time they are 16, just about the time that they are falling in love and become sexually active with their boyfriend, and that is the very time that they need the protection, and the vaccine has worn off, and we have no guidance. At this point we have no guidance. So, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly the wrong thing to do, and my bill would say that in any situation where this is a voluntary program, an opt-in program, not an opt-out, we don't make parents jump through hoops and go get a notarized signature, or take a half day off work and go to their doctor and maybe have to have paid for a doctor appointment just so they can get a letter signed so their child doesn't have to get this vaccine. That is insanity. We need to do a good job. We physicians, those of my colleagues who are still practicing, especially my good OB/GYN friends across this country and primary care doctors everywhere, pediatricians need to talk to their parents, talk to their patients and explain that this great vaccine is available, and it has a potential for great good. And I am sure that many, many doses of those vaccines will be sold. And I hear my colleagues in this body many times bashing the pharmaceutical companies and Big Pharma, and I heard that so much as we were passing the great Medicare prescription drug part D program for our needy seniors back in November of 2003, really beat up on the pharmaceutical industry. But this is a good company, and this should be a profitable product for them. And when they first came out with the vaccine, Mr. Speaker, it was their recommendation, and they worked with State legislators, particularly female State legislators, across the country and said maybe this would be a good idea to have it mandatory in the schools. But to their credit, after this Governor made it mandatory, not by legislation, but just by rules and regulations in his decision, there was so much public outcry against that that the company now understands that that is not the right way to go, and that is to their great credit. They understand that they have got a great product, but it is not something that should be mandatory. It should be available. It should be available, though, for those who need it most. Mr. Speaker, I am a real strong advocate for a public education. Now, I have a background of going to a Catholic school when I was growing up, but I also have a background of being on a school board in the city of Marietta, Georgia, in Cobb County, my first venture into public service, and I love that public school system. And all my children, adults now, all four, and thank God I am soon to be the father of my seventh grandchild by those four children, went to that public school system, and we loved it. We had friends that either home-schooled their children or went to private school for various and sundry reasons, and I don't argue with that at all. In fact, given the same circumstances, I would maybe have made the same choices. But I want to see our public schools in this country, in my State of Georgia, in every State, I want to see them thrive and do well. And I firmly believe in the principles of No Child Left Behind, that each and every youngster, no matter where they started in life, that they have that equal opportunity at the brass ring in our public system schools across this country. But when you start doing things like this, and that is why at the start of the hour, when I said, you know, this might not be a marquis issue like what is going on in the Middle East or global warming or the economy, this is hugely important, because if you force this, if you mandate this in the public school system, you are going to see, you talk about a flight without vouchers to home schooling and to private schooling, and we don't want to see that. I don't want to see that. I want what is best for the youngsters. And I think that we need to keep a hands-off in regard to this. I have got a few letters here, Mr. Speaker, that I could share. I have got one from a Phyllis Schlafly with the Eagle Forum who is supporting us on this issue. I have a letter here from the Concerned Women of America. I will just read the first paragraph. And this is what they say: ``Dear friends, CWA, Concerned Women for America, gives kudos to Representative Phil Gingrey, Republican from Georgia, a former obstetrician gynecologist, on a bill that he plans to introduce. Congressman Gingrey's bill will prohibit Federal funds from being used to implement a mandatory, let me emphasize, a mandatory vaccine program for human papilloma virus, a sexually transmitted disease and a cause of cervical cancer. CWA urges you to call your Member of Congress and ask them not only to cosponsor this bill, but to take whatever action they can to pass it.'' I appreciate that, and it is not for kudos or thanks that I am up here tonight. Mr. Speaker, as we do these Special Orders on both sides of the aisle, people do this because they have a commitment to a cause. And I have a commitment to a cause, and that is the cause of our young people that we make sure that we don't take away the parental right to decide. That is sacrosanct in my mind, and that is why I am here tonight spending this time with my colleagues to try to urge you to sign on to H.R. 1153, and let's do this right. Once again, as I move to closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that everybody listening in this Chamber and anybody that can hear my voice far and near understands that this bill simply says, if you force it upon our public school children, whatever State we are referring to, then we are not going to pay for that for those children who otherwise can't afford it. But absolutely, if it is appropriately done, and it is a voluntary program, an opt-in program, and I think parents are smart enough, and certainly young girls, when they get to high school, are smart enough to know that if this is available, they are going to take advantage of it; and to understand that if they don't have insurance, and they can't afford it, that we have these programs, these Federal- State programs like Medicaid and like the SCHIP program, and the Federal childhood vaccination program, so that this opportunity will not be denied to those who need it, as Representative Garrett pointed out, but we won't be wasting money on those who don't need it and don't want it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will close. And I want to thank my colleagues. I want to thank you for your attention. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio, our new Member, Mr. Jordan, and I want to thank my classmate, Member Scott Garrett from New Jersey, for being with us tonight.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for being with us tonight. I mentioned at the outset about the statistics with regard to cervical cancer worldwide being the second leading cause of cancer death in women, but maybe 9th or 10th in this country, and the difference is attributed to the fact that in this country, since the mid-1940s with the discovery of the pap smear, the value of the pap smear to screen for cervical cancer was discovered. Annual checkups were recommended for sexually active, certainly for sexually active adult women, and, again, that could start at age 14 in many instances. In some instances, it may be when a young girl is going off to college, or maybe on occasion it is not till someone is 22 or 23 years old. But at that point in her life, the most important way to prevent cervical cancer or to be able to have early detection, when it can be cured, is by having that physical examination done on a timely basis. For the most part, the recommendation is a yearly exam. And I think most women in this country get that examination on an annual or maybe every 2-year basis if they have gone several years with normal Pap smears. And it is very simple, almost painless, not something that they would rush to have done, but women know the importance of this for their protection. Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns that unless we do a great job of educating the public in regard to this vaccine, that women might get the idea that, first of all, the vaccine protects them against sexually transmitted diseases. And it does protect them against HPV virus, that virus that causes genital warts in the 0.2 percent of cases that can actually lead to cervical cancer, but it offers no protection against things like herpes and syphilis and HIV/AIDS. And I could go on and on and on, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to do that and get overly descriptive. But it only protects against that one sexually transmitted disease that is associated with cervical cancer. I want to give my colleague from New Jersey an opportunity in the time left to weigh in a bit.

Mr. GINGREY. I really appreciate my friend from New Jersey. As we all know, every Member in this body knows, he is a strong, strong fiscal conservative. He pointed out the fact that we have very limited dollars. Every day, each one of us, Representative Jordan, his constituents come up here from Ohio, and Representative Garrett's constituents from New Jersey, mine from Georgia, and each one of them has a request. Many of them are health-care related. Today I was visited by a mom who has two autistic children. Maybe my colleagues had constituents advocating on behalf of more funding for autism, and it goes on and on and on. It is our job, with limited dollars, to try to decide how to apply them for the greater good. I really appreciate the gentleman's comments in regard to putting the money where it's going to be most effective and not to waste it, not to waste those precious dollars. As he pointed out, you can only spend that dollar once.

Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Ohio, and this point about opt in-opt out, on most of the bills that have been introduced, probably, in maybe 23 or 24 States, not a Governor issued a mandate, but where bills were actually introduced. The opt-out provision actually requires one of two things, either a doctor's excuse or the parent to sign that they want their child to not take the vaccines, but they have to have it notarized. Just think about the burden that really puts on people to try to find a notary. I mean, it's just not that easy to do, and it's certainly not easy to get a doctor to write an opt-out provision.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, this looks like Georgia night in the great Chamber of the House of Representatives. My colleague, Representative Price, just talked about one of the most important debates that we have had in this body in a long time and will have in regard to the situation in Iraq and the Commander in Chief and the constitutional right for the Commander in Chief to make the decisions along with the combatant commanders. These issues are hugely important. Things like the energy crisis that we faced 25 years ago, and we are facing again today, are hugely important issues. In fact, former Vice President Gore will be before the Science and Energy and Commerce Committees on Thursday talking about global warming and what we think we ought to do in regard to not only solving the energy crisis, but to keep from polluting the atmosphere. Hugely important issue. Trying to solve the crisis that is looming in regard to the entitlement spending which is, that along with the interest on the debt, is probably approaching 65 percent of what we spend each year in a $2.7 trillion budget, hugely important issue. Then, Mr. Speaker, every now and then along comes something that maybe does not get at first notice very much. There is not a lot of press. It is not one of the marquee issues of the day, but what I am speaking to my colleagues about tonight is also hugely important, and it, thank goodness, is beginning to get the attention that it deserves. That is an issue that I, as a physician and OB/GYN specialist in particular, physician Member of this body, feel very, very strongly about. What I am referring to is the recent decision by one of the Governors of our 50 States to mandate that young girls in the public school system of that particular State would be required to receive a new vaccine, which I will describe in detail in just a minute. They would be required before they could enter the sixth grade, the sixth grade, we all know sixth, seventh and eighth, and in some cases, considered the middle school years. So coming out of elementary or what I used to call grammar school, where there are many of these young girls, including my precious granddaughters, are still thinking about watching Little House on the Prairie as an example or playing with their dolls, would be required, just like they would be required to have their shots up to date in regard to measles and mumps and rubella and chickenpox, these highly contagious, infectious diseases that can be acquired just on casual contact; if you sneeze in the vicinity of a classmate, the disease is spread. This new vaccine, though, is not against one of these highly contagious communicable diseases, no, Mr. Speaker. This vaccine, called Gardisil, is a vaccine against cervical cancer- causing viruses, referred to as human papilloma virus, or HPV. There are probably 100 strains of that virus in existence that have been identified, but four of them, virus number 6, number 11 and particularly number 16 and number 18, have been associated with the dreaded disease of cervical cancer about 70 percent of the time. About 70 percent of the cases that occur, the 9,000 new cases that occur in this country every year, are associated with that HPV virus. So there is certainly a suggestion, a strong suggestion, of cause and effect. One of our great pharmaceutical companies in this country developed a vaccine that was approved a year ago, June of 2006, to prevent the contraction of this HPV virus, and it is a great vaccine. The studies, the phase III trials, while there, Mr. Speaker, may be some minor side effects, the safety seems to be there. The recommendation, of course, is that sexually active young women between the ages of, well, actually 9 and 16, I would hasten to add that there are not too many 9-year-olds that are sexually active, but the vaccine is approved for those in that age group. It is thought that a series of three vaccines, given a month or two apart, at the cost of $360 just for the vaccine, probably up to $500 once you add the cost of going to a physician, going to a gynecologist and having these vaccines administered, the cost of an office visit, the administration of the vaccine, probably a $500 charge, but a good investment in this humble Member, physician Member, former gynecologist, in his opinion, probably a good choice for a young woman even at the age of 14 or 15, if she is sexually active or going to be sexually active, or maybe even a little bit younger if her parents are concerned about that possibility. Then I think the vaccination that has been developed by this pharmaceutical company and the vaccine referred to earlier, Gardisil, I would highly recommend, and if I was still practicing medicine, Mr. Speaker, and a mom brought her daughter in and asked me about that and said that she heard about it and wondered if I would recommend it, I would absolutely recommend it. But what was done in the last month or so, and this Member just happened to notice, and that is why I say this maybe seems like a small thing, but what it does is the mandate was issued that every single girl in that State at age 11, before going from elementary school, grammar school, to middle school, would have to have that vaccine, or she would not be able to continue in that public school system. Mr. Speaker, that is just flat wrong, and my bill that I introduced the very next day in this body, H.R. 1153, the title of that bill is the Parental Right to Decide Protection Act, because this is all about the rights of a parent to decide what is best for their child. There is no State interest in this because, as I point out, you do not contract human papilloma virus by casual contact. No, it is by sexual activity, and to force every single 11-year-old child in this country to get that vaccination or they cannot go to the public school system, even though they have paid their property taxes, they live in that school district, they have been in that school district, they have supported that school district, and their parents teach their children, maybe they believe firmly in abstinence-based sexual education, but they have that right to decide. The State does not have that right. That is why I say to my colleagues tonight that this is a hugely important issue. Cancer is a dreaded disease. We all probably would choose any other way to die than from a long, protracted case of any kind of cancer. Cervical cancer worldwide is probably the second leading cause of cancer death in women. That is not true in the United States. It may be the ninth or tenth or eleventh but it is too many. There are probably 9,700 new cases of cervical cancer in this country every year, and of those, approximately 3,700 die, and that is too many. We need to do everything that we can to prevent cervical cancer, and that is why I say the vaccine is a good thing. That is why I say that I, as a compassionate physician Member of this body, would recommend that vaccine to someone who has either told their parents that their daughter and her boyfriend are sexually active or they plan to be sexually active, and that could be 14 years of age. I know we all would hope that it would not be, but our daughter or granddaughter, but it could, and in those cases the recommendation to voluntarily take this opportunity to get that immunization on board really before they become sexually active, certainly before they become sexually active with multiple partners, is a good thing, but it is not a good thing to mandate it and to require it. We will talk about this throughout the hour, and I am very, very pleased to welcome one of my colleagues, a new Member, a very bright Member. He does not seem like a new Member because he is doing such a great job in these first 3 months of the 110th Congress. At this point I would like to yield to my good friend Mr. Jordan for his comments.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recall the exceptional life of Reverend Raymond Moss of Marietta, Georgia. Reverend Moss passed away this month at the age of 79, leaving behind a long legacy as an advocate of social justice and civil rights. Reverend Moss was a fixture in Cobb County. After a brief stint in Minor League Baseball and a job as draftsman at Lockheed Martin, Moss found his true calling, and in 1959 he started Back to the Bible Holiness Church, the first homegrown Black church in Cobb County. He went on to build 14 more churches in Georgia and Alabama, and helped lead the Cobb community during the turbulent civil rights era. Reverend Moss was a compassionate father not only to his own 14 children, but to any member of the Marietta community in need of a mentor. In fact, I first came to know the Reverend 30 years ago while practicing medicine with one of his dear friends, Dr. Douglas Glover. Indeed, many of Reverend Moss' faithful came to my office for care, and all had been deeply touched by the Reverend's compassion. I know these members of our community will carry on his dedication to compassionate service. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in honoring the life of Reverend Raymond Moss.