Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. My good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, decried politics, and then he started his remarks about politics. He talked about whether these judges were Republican judges and Democratic judges and gave numbers. In response to him, we are blaming activist judges, whether they are Democratically appointed or Republican appointees, who are attempting by judicial fiat to redefine our constitutional definition of marriage which has stood for 223 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to my good friend from Texas, who has been married to his lovely wife for 37 years, Judge John Carter.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 2 minutes now to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), who has been married 37\1/2\ years.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers on my side. While I am going to reserve the balance of my time for closing, I want to respond and give myself as much time as I might consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts, for whom, and whose intellect, I have a deep respect. I think he knows that. Let me just say that Americans are a good and tolerant people. The people of this country believe in equality and freedom, and we respect the rights of individuals to conduct their personal lives as they see fit. Reasonable people can differ in their views on homosexuality or its causes, consequences, and moral significance. Personally, I think it is a good thing that American citizens who happen to be gay are accorded more tolerance and respect today than was the case 50 years ago. But I honestly believe that the issue facing us today is not the issue of homosexuality. Most fundamentally, the issue we face today is marriage, the meaning of marriage as an institution and how best to support it. I favor the Federal Marriage Amendment because I want to support the institutution of marriage and keep it strong. This issue is not, in my humble opinion, about homosexuality.

Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, in response to the gentleman, again, as I said, it is not an issue of same-sex union.

Mr. GINGREY. And benefits that are afforded them by many States. The States certainly have the right to prescribe that in regard to issues of consanguinity and the age of consent and benefits for same-sex unions. But they don't, in my opinion, have the right to redefine the definition of marriage.

Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, I think that the gentlewoman from Colorado and those of us who support this constitutional amendment feel that this is all about marriage that results, or potentially can result, in the procreation of children. This is what our Constitution has implied for 223 years and, indeed, what the word of God has implied for 2,000 years. With that, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Santorum-Bartlett pluripotent stem cell bill, and I want to take this opportunity to say on the floor of the House of Representatives that I am proudly both pro-life and pro-science. Today is a great day for the American people. Today they get to see their Members of Congress stand up for the sanctity of human life as well as the hope of medical research. No longer as a society do our hands need to be tied to choose one or another; nor are we forced to trade one person's life for the chance to improve another's. No. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that technology has advanced and research has shown that there are methods to obtain embryonic-like stem cells ethically. It is because of the potential of these advances that the Federal Government should invest their financial resources in the promise of pluripotent stem cell research. My good friend from Delaware, Mr. Castle, said earlier, you know, why go through another step? We have already got this proven technique that the Castle-DeGette bill calls for of obtaining stem cells, embryonic stem cells, from human embryos by just simply putting them in a blender, churning them up and easily getting those embryonic stem cells out. I am saying to you and my colleagues, that is too much collateral damage. The collateral damage is destruction of human life. This is a better way. We can utilize embryonic stem cells from what Mr. Bartlett has described in his bill and Senator Santorum, and I think that is the way to go. I commend him for this bill, and I commend it to my colleagues.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here this evening as the designee of the majority leader talking about something that is hugely, hugely important that we debated on the floor of this House just an hour, maybe a couple of hours ago. And, Mr. Speaker, I am referring, of course, to the issue of stem cell research. And just to kind of set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues know that my prior profession was that of a physician, in particular as an OB-GYN doctor, a pro-life OB-GYN practicing in my home State of Georgia for 26 years. And the President, before I was elected to the Congress in August of 2001, Mr. Speaker, made a very careful, thought-out and prayerful decision in regard to the issue of the utilization of embryonic stem cells for medical research in hopes of providing someday a cure for some of the devastating diseases that we have seen in public service announcements on television. And God rest his soul, I remember when the actor Christopher Reeve was talking about the suffering and his malady. And, of course, there are other conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and Type 1 diabetes and things like that. And we do hope and every Member in this body hopes on both sides of the aisle, and the other body as well, that someday we can have our medical research scientists, doctors, develop an ability to treat some of these chronic, devastating diseases. Spinal cord injury certainly is another. But the President made this decision because people were asking that we take so-called extra embryos from fertility clinics that couples were not going to use. Maybe they had already achieved a pregnancy or several pregnancies and they had completed their family, and yet because of egg retrieval and in vitro fertilization, there were these embryos that they owned, that belonged to them, that were frozen in case they may, indeed, need them at some point in the future. Some couples, of course, would decide that their family was complete and maybe never utilize these frozen embryos. And there was a great push on the President to say, well, look, these are just extra. They are going to be thrown away anyway. The couples have already said they do not want them and they are willing to donate them to research. And the research we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is the ability to take those embryos and obtain from them something that we refer to as a stem cell and, by definition, an embryonic stem cell. But to do that, as the President so clearly understood, these embryos were being destroyed. Although it is not an exactly accurate description, Mr. Speaker, but you may say you just put these embryos in a blender and you churn them up and you centrifuge and at some point you are able to obtain these stem cells from the embryo that have a potential in cell culture, when stimulated in a certain way, to grow into really any tissue of the body. There are three different germ cell layers. But in essence, if you needed cardiac muscle in somebody who, let's say had a heart attack, and you could go these embryonic stem cells and make them become heart muscle, maybe you could repair that scar on a person's heart. Or if you could stimulate these cells to become nerve tissue, maybe indeed you could help a little child overcome the paralysis of spina bifida, or someone with a spinal cord injury like a very fine Member of this House that suffered a spinal cord injury as a teenager, maybe you can do that. The President recognized that. But basically what he said to the American people in August of 2001, shortly before 9/11, is we are not going to allow taxpayer dollars to be used for research on embryonic stem cells if it results in the destruction of human life, the destruction of one life, maybe a near perfect life if you allow it to continue to live, in the hopes that you can, in destroying it, take these beginning cells that we call stem cells from the embryo and help somebody else. Well, the President basically said, Mr. Speaker, and I agreed with him then and I agree with him wholeheartedly today as a pro-life physician and a pro-life Member of this body, there was too much collateral damage. In this instance the collateral damage was the death of that embryo, that little baby, if you will. We call them fetuses, embryo, fetus, but really it is just a little baby. Today at a press conference, and they have been on the Hill before, but it was so poignant to me, Mr. Speaker, to see some of these so- called snowflake babies, these little embryos from these fertility clinics, these so-called extras. Well, lo and behold, almost 100 couples were aware of the availability and asked some of these parents who owned those embryos, they were their children and they had the right to throw them away or donate them, offer them up for adoption, and some infertile couples, many of whom we saw today, Mr. Speaker, at this press conference, legally adopted these so-called throwaway, extra, nobody-wants-them embryos. In two instances, they resulted in twins, identical twins. I saw 3- year-old boys, beautiful boys and 2-year-old identical twin girls, two different couples of these almost 100 moms and dads who have adopted these so-called throwaway embryos. Mr. Speaker, those two sets of twins that me and some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle saw today at this press conference, they could have been in that blender churned up so that their stem cells would have been obtained in hopes of helping somebody else. These precious lives would not exist today. This President has got a great heart and great compassion and great morality, and he was absolutely right to say we will fund with taxpayer dollars through our National Institutes of Health and our great scientists, we will fund research programs on stem cells, even embryonic stem cells, but not if it means we have got to kill some little baby in harvesting these cells. Well, the President was right. But last year in this body a couple of our Members sponsored a bill, one from both sides of the aisle, two well-respected Members, I have great respect for both of them, and Members in the other body wanted to bring this back up and felt that because the American public, after watching all of these public service announcements that tug at your heartstrings, felt that, well, you know, why not? You are just going to throw away those embryos. Of course, these public service announcements didn't talk about the snowflake babies, the children that we saw today. If they had known that, if the public knew that, if they were fully aware of it, then all these polling numbers that we hear, Mr. Speaker, that say, oh, the public wants this, the public demands this, and therefore we have this bill last year, the so-called Castle-DeGette bill, H.R. 810, I believe is the number, and it passes this body. It passes this body with support on both sides of the aisle, but with more Democrats supporting it than Republicans. But, in any regard, it passes. Now, today the bill passes the Senate. I think they thought they were going to roll the table over there, Mr. Speaker. It barely got the number of votes that it needed, 63, where they require that supermajority in the other body. So this bill is going to go to the President. It is going to go to the President. It is probably already on his desk, or maybe it will be there tomorrow, and he is going to be expected to vote yea or nay on that bill. Well, not only do I hope and pray, I have every confidence that this President will stand by his convictions, as he always has, Mr. Speaker, whether we are talking about fighting the Global War on Terrorism or protecting the sanctity of human life, and this President will veto that bill, as well he should. Now, one of the main purposes of me wanting to speak tonight about values, and there is hardly anything more important in this body that we attend to than the values of this great Nation that we are so privileged to be a part of, we have another bill. We have a bill that was voted on in this body today, and it required by the rules of procedure a two-thirds vote here, and it did not quite get it today. It did not quite reach that two-thirds majority for passage. But I want to just kind of talk about the bill a little bit and make sure my colleagues fully understand. I hope there was no confusion about this alternate bill, because really what the bill does, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, it is an opportunity to obtain these same embryonic stem cells without destroying or even harming human life. I as a physician know that it can be done. In fact, it is occurring in nature. I will describe that in just a minute. My colleague who really drafted the original bill, Roscoe Bartlett, the gentleman from Maryland, this became the Senator Santorum bill, which was a companion bill, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania, a great pro-life, traditional, family value member in the Senate, for introducing it. Mr. Speaker, that bill in the Senate today, it didn't pass with 63 votes like the H.R. 810 Castle-DeGette bill did. The vote was 100-0. I don't even know how many days you are going to have 100 members. That is 100 percent of that body present. It is hard at any time to have 100 percent of the membership present, what with family emergencies and things like that. But today there were 100, the whole body was there, and a 100-0 vote in support of Senator Santorum, Representative Bartlett's bill, that would fund research, would let taxpayer dollars go to grants to research ways of obtaining those embryonic and other stem cells without harming or destroying human life. Now, it passed. That bill passed here in the House of Representatives this afternoon, but it was just a little bit short of the two-thirds that it needed. We will bring that bill back to this floor, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, and it will pass, and it will pass with bipartisan support, and it will pass with a wide majority. A great plurality of the 435 Members of this body will support this bill. Two-thirds? No, but darn close to it. It will go to the President and the President will have an opportunity then to say to the American people, you know, I have got these two pieces of legislation here. They both seek the same result. Each bill wants to give us an opportunity to put money behind research so that we can obtain these embryonic and adult stem cells so we can help people like the late great Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox, a person who we all know who is suffering from parkinsonism, but, more importantly, the folks back home, our constituents, our families, our moms, our dads, our grandparents, the child I see in church every Sunday who is suffering from a spinal condition, probably spina bifida. We know that we can put money behind research in either one of these two bills, the Castle-DeGette bill, H.R. 810, I think it is, or the Santorum-Bartlett bill. But, Mr. Speaker, the difference, there is a huge difference in the two bills. As I told my colleagues on the floor today, the difference is in the collateral damage. In the Bartlett-Santorum bill, it allows this research to be able to obtain stem cells maybe from an embryo by a biopsy without harming the fetus, or the Castle-DeGette bill, where you do it the easy way. You just kind of take the embryo and you churn it up and centrifuge off the stem cells. I heard someone on the floor today say that, well, you know, we know that method, the blender method, if you will, where we destroy human life in obtaining the embryonic stem cells. It is easy. It is proven. We can do it. There is no problem. Why should we go through another step or two and go to the trouble and the expense? And, oh, by the way, it may take a year or two before we know for sure that it works. Why don't we just go ahead and do the expedient thing? Goodness gracious, my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, the expedient thing results in the loss of life, and no snowflake embryos, no precious twins that we saw today. It is just not the right thing to do. This President, thank God, has a good heart and a good soul and a good mind, and he knows that. And I think God has given him the wisdom to make the right decision in this case and resist the pressure and understand that the polling, many times when you ask the question, if people don't fully understand what I am trying to explain to my colleagues tonight, and anyone that might be listening at home, that when you look at it and understand what I am saying, and it is the absolute truth, what I am saying, I think the American people overwhelmingly would say, well, gee, you know, if we are going to get the same result and there is already good research going on with Federal funding, our tax dollars supporting research on adult stem cells and we are getting good results, all right. In the private sector, Mr. Speaker, there is plenty of research going on in regard to embryonic stem cells, some of which are obtained from those fertility clinics with the destruction of human life. If private people want to do that, the State of California recently enacted legislation or had a statewide referendum that called for $3 billion in funding for embryonic stem cell research that does result in the death of the embryo, and that is fine. If they want to do that in California with their money, fine. If private companies want to do it, that is fine. But to say to the American people, who I am sure I am correct in saying that more than 50 percent of them, certainly in my district in my State, in my hospital, are strongly pro-life, and to say to them, you know, we are going to take your money, your tax dollars, and we are going to put it and let NIH researchers or give grants to doctors, wherever, you know, I am not going to name names or places, but these higher institutes of learning, these ivory towers, they are great, we love them. We are all for research. But not if it means that my money is going to fund something that results in yet another of the 40 million abortions that have occurred since Roe versus Wade in 1973. Make no mistake about it. Every time you kill one of these embryos to obtain those stem cells in this manner, that is yet another abortion. So I am very much opposed to the Castle-DeGette bill and very much in favor, Mr. Speaker, of the Santorum-Bartlett bill. As I say, I will in all probability have an opportunity to discuss the rule on the floor tomorrow. We will have another vote, and I will be very proud when my colleagues again on both sides of the aisle, there is no way this should be a partisan issue, really it is not. We will have the votes to do the right thing. I really look forward to that. I wanted, Mr. Speaker, to take a little time to talk about another issue or two, that may come up as we refer this week to ``values week'' in the House of Representatives. Although we sometimes get criticized and people say, well, you know, you all are spending all of your time talking about values, and yet we have got a deficit and we have got a national debt and we need to fund this and we need to fund that, and, you know, your responsibilities, you are neglecting them as you concentrate on these value issues like the Marriage Protection Act, the Pledge of Allegiance Protection Act and this stem cell issue, I would say to those critics, and some of them were sitting in this Chamber earlier today, from my perspective, I was sent here to do more than just spend people's money. Obviously we have to spend money, and we try to do it wisely. But the values of this country are just as important to me in my representation of those values, not just my district in Georgia, the 11th, or my State, but of this entire country, because we need to show the world that we are a country of strong moral values. I think that that in itself will help us as much as anything in the Middle East, to let the rest of the world know that we have character in this country and we stand by these values. And so for us to spend time standing up for the sanctity of marriage is an example. I would say to my constituents and my colleagues, that is no waste of time. That is no waste of time at all. The debate that we had on the floor today on this constitutional amendment resolution brought to us by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), a champion really of this cause, and I commend her for her ethics both in this 109th Congress and the 108th Congress. We fell a little short of the two-thirds vote we needed. They fell a little short in the other body. But I will guarantee you the American people would not fall short on this issue. 88 percent of them in 45 States have already addressed this issue, and they cannot wait for this Congress with its two-thirds majority vote in both bodies to give them the opportunity to vote on this constitutional amendment, defining, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I just went over, Mr. Speaker, before we started the time and looked at the dictionary. It is right to my left as we come into the door, these hallowed halls. And you see Members looking at it all the time. This happens to be the Random House Webster's dictionary. And listen to what they say about the definition of marriage. ``The social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments and religious ceremony''. That is what we are talking about. And when Members stand up and criticize and say, oh, well, what about Federalism and the power of the States? Well, the States regulate issues such as age of consent and consanguinity and the rules of civil procedure and inheritance, and that does not change at all. But it just says that these activist judges, because of a constitutional amendment that I know one day soon we will pass, that the definition, the definition of marriage is that union between a man and a woman. You know who benefits the most from that, Mr. Speaker? You know who benefits the most, my colleagues? It is the children of that marriage. And do not call me a bigot for my strong feeling that a child needs a mother and father. I feel very strongly about that. And this is not a racial issue. There is no hatred involved, certainly not in the heart of Marilyn Musgrave, a great mom and wife. The Members who really overwhelming support this. This is the right thing to do. And that is why we spend time in this body, precious time, yes, talking about our values. Our values in regard to the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage. Finally, finally, Mr. Speaker, let me talk a little bit about the pledge of allegiance. You know, I believe it is the 9th District Court, we sometimes refer to it as the Left Coast, but that would be California for those of you who do not know to what I am referring. For those judges to say that it is unconstitutional to have ``under God'' in the pledge of allegiance and make a decision, Federal District Court in the 9th District which includes California and the rest of the left coast, and to have that say that that is applicable to the entire United States. No way. No way. And we are not going to have it. We are not going to have it. And we will be discussing and voting on a bill tomorrow that says to these activist judges, you keep your legal opinions away from our pledge of allegiance. And you have no authority whatsoever to speak in regard to that. If some State court wants to do it, or some State supreme court wants to do it, and their citizens are happy with that, so be it. But not at the Federal level. I am going to tell you, if they did it in the State of Georgia we would throw the bums out. They may embrace them in California, but that is what makes this country great, you know. I mean, different strokes for different folks. But we want to make absolutely sure that these activist Federal judges are not taking God out of our pledge of allegiance, and we will have that vote, we will have the discussion. We will have a good discussion and then we will have Members kind of go on record. Those votes will not be by voice vote, I can assure you of that, Mr. Speaker. They will be record votes, and I really, really look forward to that debate. Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude. I think we have a very important Rules Committee meeting coming up in a few minutes and I need to be at that noting. But again, I wanted to thank the leadership. I want to thank my Speaker and my majority leader, our conference chairwoman, Deborah Pryce for giving me the opportunity to come here tonight and spend 30 or 40 minutes talking about values and how important they are on our side of the aisle, and how important they are to the leadership. Mr. Speaker, I think that they are important really to all Members in this chamber. They are good people, good hearts, men and women on both sides of the aisle. And I think sometimes, though, we have a tendency to lose our way. We have got a lot of pressure, a lot of interest groups, a lot of advocates, stakeholders wanting us to do certain things. But I think if we stop and think, we do not get in too big a hurry, realize that we do not have to rush to destroy embryos, as an example. If we take our time, we can get the same result with no collateral damage. That is what it is all about. That is what values are all about. So I am happy to have had this time to share my thoughts with my colleagues. I look forward to tomorrow, another day, when we will have some very, very significant value votes in this body. With that, I yield back.

Mr. GINGREY

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

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to highlight how H.R. 9 could more effectively address the current landscape of voter participation in this country. And I want to point out to my colleague, Mr. Scott, my good friend from Georgia, that the Federal observers that he mentioned are actually removed in this bill. So while the bill may seem sufficient to Members from States that will not be affected by this legislation, I feel compelled to highlight how the standards of this bill can be improved. In the 1980 city of Rome, Georgia v. United States decision, the Supreme Court reviewed the equal protection objections to the Voting Rights Act as raised by the city of Rome, which is in Georgia's 11th district, my district. While the Court did recognize the inherent inequity of applying section 5 restrictions to some, but not all States, the Court cited lagging African American voter registration and participation in elective office as sufficient justification to uphold the Voting Rights Act, despite concerns of equal protection violations for the States, because at the time the Voting Rights Act was considered a temporary law. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier in this debate, Georgia has come a long way in the past 40 years. In 2000, 66.3 percent of black Georgians were registered to vote, compared to 59.3 of white Georgians; 51.6 percent of black Georgians turned out to vote in the 2000 election, compared to 48.3 percent of white Georgians. We have gone from 30 African American elected officials in 1970 to 582 in 2000. We have four African Americans in Congress, three African American supreme court justices, including the chief justice, and two African Americans elected as statewide constitutional officers, attorney general and labor commissioner. Since the Supreme Court's ruling in the City of Rome v. United States, Georgia has met the standards laid out by the Court, and as Mr. Westmoreland says, should not be penalized because of voter participation in 1964.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment of my friend and colleague from Georgia, Representative Charlie Norwood. This amendment will correct a fundamental flaw of this bill. As currently drafted, H.R. 9 will not only apply 1964 standards to the world of 2006, but it will continue to apply it for the next 25 years. Mr. Chairman, I know that some claim this amendment is a poison pill designed to kill the bill. But I would say that this amendment, rather, is a disinfectant that will save this bill from a constitutional challenge. The Norwood amendment will strengthen this act by creating a rolling standard using turnout from the three most recent Presidential elections to determine a State's compliance requirements under section 5. This rolling standard will keep every State, whether south, north, east or west, on their toes with respect to the voting rights of their citizens. Just look, Mr. Chairman, at the additional jurisdictions that would be covered by the Norwood amendment. It makes no sense to use the election of 1964 as a measure of voter participation in 2006, and the Norwood amendment fixes this flaw. It ensures the passage of a Voting Rights Act that is not only fair, but it also upholds the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. Mr. Chairman, in good conscience, how can we be justified in punishing the citizens of States covered by section 5 based upon voter participation in 1964? The Norwood amendment will correct this inequity and ensure that the underlying bill protects the voting rights of every citizen in every State by using a modern and accurate standard. Mr. Chairman, again, I encourage all my colleagues, please adopt this amendment. Give this House an opportunity to renew a true and constitutional Voting Rights Act.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Representative Lynn Westmoreland, and I would ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting it. I was surprised a little earlier to hear the chairman say that of the four amendments this is the worst of the lot. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that it is one of the best of the lot, and with all due respect to Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Chabot, I wish there was as much concern about the unfunded mandates that this bailout provision in H.R. 9 puts on local jurisdictions and the unfunded mandates that the multilingual ballot requirements put on local jurisdictions as their concern of the financial burden and time constraints that it puts on the Justice Department. This amendment will facilitate States and jurisdictions that have fully complied with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act to be expeditiously removed from its section 5 restrictions as already provided by law. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will simply require that the Department of Justice on an annual basis proactively notify States and jurisdictions once they are eligible for relief from section 5 preclearance requirements. Once the Department of Justice determines a State or jurisdiction is eligible, the Department of Justice must promptly notify them and then consent to a streamlined judicial process for the State or jurisdiction, which in turn will significantly reduce the legal costs borne by our taxpayers. Simply put, since the Department of Justice has the responsibility anyway to monitor and review States covered by the Voting Rights Act, the DOJ should also have the responsibility to notify States once they have qualified to be relieved from the restrictions and allow them to do so with a minimal amount of cost. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my colleagues, support this amendment. This may be one of the best of the four. In fact, support all four amendments. It makes the underlying bill better and more equitable.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my good friend from Iowa, Representative King, and I would ask for its adoption. This commonsense amendment will remove a substantial and unnecessary burden for our State and local governments by allowing the sunset of sections 7 and 8 of the bill which mandate the printing of multilingual ballots on the basis of data collected in a flawed manner by the Census Bureau. Under current law, if the Census reports that 5 percent of the State's population speaks primarily a language other than English, even though most of them can speak English quite well, then the whole State must print ballots in that language for every precinct. Once a State or voting jurisdiction meets this 5-percent threshold, any other minority language can be added with a significantly lower threshold. Mr. Chairman, this is insanity, and, furthermore, it is an unfunded mandate on our States. There are already existing avenues to assist individuals, as the chairman just said, who may have difficulty reading a ballot in official English, and there is no reason whatsoever to waste taxpayers' dollars on printing thousands upon thousands of ballots that will probably never be used. This amendment will not prevent any State from printing multilingual ballots, but will only remove this burdensome Federal mandate on the States. Let's adopt this commonsense cost-saving provision and stop the insanity.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. The Committee on Rules may meet the week of July 17 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by noon on Tuesday, July 18, 2006. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as introduced on May 17, 2005. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format, and they should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished vice chairman of Rules for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting it. I am pleased that our committee allowed the opportunity to consider four very important amendments that will fine tune the underlying legislation, ensuring that it is equally applied to all States and addresses the world as it is in 2006, rather than 1964. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the amendment offered by my colleagues from Georgia, Representatives Norwood and Westmoreland. These amendments would ensure the constitutionality of the underlying bill. And I would also like to encourage everyone to support two very good amendments offered by Representative King of Iowa and Representative Gohmert of Texas. The underlying bill, as drafted now, aims to address voting patterns and the world in 1964. Mr. Speaker, a lot has changed in 40-plus years. Every State has seen changes in population and voter participation, and we should have a law that fits the world of 2006. In 1964, my home State of Georgia not only was behind other States in voter participation, but also employed discriminatory tactics to suppress minority voting rights. And therefore, Georgia was justifiably subject to Voting Rights Act, section 5. However, in 2006, the landscape of voter participation and the number of minority individuals holding elective office is dramatically different. In 1970, Mr. Speaker, there were 30 black elected officials in Georgia. In 2000, there were 582 black elected officials. With respect to types of elective office, African Americans have held and continue to hold some of the highest leadership positions in the Georgia legislature, county governments and municipal governments. Today, Georgia's attorney general and labor commissioner, both State- wide elected offices, are currently held by African Americans. Georgia has four African Americans in our congressional delegation, tied with California, New York and, yes, Mr. Speaker, Illinois, for the highest number. Three of seven seats on the Georgia supreme court, including the position of chief justice, are held by African Americans. In fact, in Georgia the percentage of registered voters and voter turnout are higher, let me repeat, higher among blacks than whites. So, Mr. Speaker, I would put Georgia's record up against any, and I believe that Georgia, like every other State in this Union, must be treated equally with a Voting Rights Act that addresses the problems of 2006, not 1966. And the Voting Rights Act must apply the same standards to each and every State. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage my colleagues to support this fair and equitable rule. I also ask my colleagues to keep an open mind as we debate four fair, commonsense amendments after today's general debate. I believe we need to support these amendments and send to the Senate a Voting Rights Act for the 21st century.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to emphatically encourage the United Nations to take a strong stand against North Korea. Last Tuesday, North Korea shocked the world by test-firing missiles, including a long-range Taepodong-2, that could one day be capable of reaching the western United States. Japanese and United States satellite photography have shown movement at North Korean bases that indicate preparations for even further missile launches. Mr. Speaker, the carrot approach of previous administrations has done nothing to deter Kim Jong-il's erratic and irresponsible behavior. In 1994, North Korea agreed to freeze and ultimately dismantle its existing plutonium-based nuclear program. However, in December 2002, we learned the North Korean regime was pursuing a nuclear weapons program based on enriched uranium in violation of that agreement. Mr. Speaker, we must learn from our previous efforts. We cannot stake our national security on meaningless agreements with an unpredictable and maniacal dictator. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in imploring the United Nations to condemn North Korea's actions as a threat to stability around the globe.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate for a Member to characterize the motivation of another Member, which I think the gentlewoman from Nevada, whether intentionally or unintentionally, just did? In addition to that, of course, reference the member as a hypocrite. And I just would like to know from the Parliamentarian, is this appropriate for a Member to characterize the motivation of another Member as Ms. Berkley just did regarding the distinguished author of this bill, Mr. Goodlatte?

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman from Virginia, it would be nice if we could in the United States Congress with our laws regulate what folks can do in Aruba or Bimini or Paradise Island. Unfortunately, we can't do that. But this bill does prohibit the use of financial instruments to pay for that gambling activity that is run offshore. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GINGREY. We currently have no more requests for speakers at this time, so I am reserving for the purpose of closing.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of the importance of this underlying bill. I want to again commend Chairman Oxley and Chairman Sensenbrenner for their stewardship of the bill, as well as Representatives Leach and Goodlatte, the sponsors of the bill. H.R. 4411 goes a long way to modernize and clarify existing law, to turn back the tide of offshore Internet gambling sites that penetrate our borders and computers across this country with virtually no legal oversight. These organizations have the ability to prey on children as well as those citizens who suffer from a gambling addiction, and they must be stopped. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4411 does a very good job of getting at the root of the problem and targeting those organizations that enable this illicit activity by tightening legal definitions and toughening the penalties for violations. This bill achieves these ends while also preserving the rights of our States and their regulatory powers. So for the sake of minors who might be lured into gambling, and, in truth, citizens of all ages, I want to encourage my colleagues to support both this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), and I trust that he will be speaking about H.R. 4411 and this rule concerning the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the coauthor of this important piece of legislation, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. As I listened to my colleagues, I realized that a lot of what I am going to say is going to be a repeat, but I will tell you what, the story is so good, Mr. Speaker, I want to hear it again myself. Let me just say that this legislation contains two crucial provisions that allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention more flexibility to expand its successful National Foundation Program. This Foundation is a private, nonprofit organization that was authorized back in 1992 by Congress to raise private funds to support the work of the CDC. It was established to unite outside partners and resources with CDC scientists and employees in order to build programs which substantially strengthen the influence of the CDC. Some examples of the Foundation's current successful partnerships are Home Depot, UPS and BellSouth. Currently, the Foundation is required to enforce a maximum of 2 years' participation in the program. However, S. 655 would allow the Foundation to work with these and other partners and employees for as long as they deem appropriate. Since it was incorporated as a nonprofit back in 1996, the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has raised, and it has been stated earlier, more than $100 million. This has been accomplished with a maximum annual investment limit of only $500,000, meaning that each year the CDC can transfer a maximum of 500,000 from its own budget to fund the Foundation. In recent years, the Foundation has established a reputation of raising almost $15 million annually. And that, as Mr. Green said, is a 30-fold return on investment. Mr. Speaker, this legislation increases this maximum investment limit to $1.25 million, an amount equal to the ceiling placed on the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. This provision allows the CDC to transfer an additional $750,000 annually from its budget to support the operating expenses of the Foundation, thereby allowing it to continue to raise private funds for CDC research. In this time of uncertainty with respect to things like avian flu and other public health threats, our country needs more from this agency than ever. S. 655 gives the Foundation the flexibility to make crucial changes that will increase the capacity of the CDC by leveraging this successful public-private sector collaboration. It is in the best interest of the American taxpayer to allow a successful program to leverage more private funds to support this crucial agency. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 4411, pursuant to House Resolution 907, notwithstanding the ordering of the previous question, it may be in order at any time for the Chair to postpone further consideration of the bill until a later time to be designated by the Speaker.