Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Isn't it true that the motion to recommit was passed by a recorded vote?

Isn't it further true that the motion to recommit was brought back with the bill for final passage and that last motion was on final passage and you called the vote a ``no''?

Actually, the amendment was already agreed to and it came back with the final bill. There was no call for a separate vote on the amendment again.

By vote about 20 minutes ago.

With instructions, with the amendment included in it. So the only vote left for you to put before the House is the vote on final passage, and you called it a ``no'' vote.

Parliamentary inquiry, please.

What I heard the Speaker say was under the rule it is postponed.

Is it in the rule that there will be no vote on this issue?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of the underlying legislation, and in support of the memory and legacy of its author, my friend and colleague, Charlie Norwood.

Many people may remember the story of Nicholas Greene, the 17-year- old boy who was killed during a family vacation in Italy. The tragic and sudden loss of this young boy was turned into a story of hope and love when his parents generously donated his organs. Out of his tragic death sprang life, as seven people received Nicholas' heart, liver, kidneys, corneas, and pancreatic cells.

If there is one lesson we can take from Nicholas' great gift to the world and from the strong humanitarian legacy of Charlie Norwood, it is that we must support life whenever we have that opportunity.

H.R. 710 specifically excludes kidney-paired donation from the National Organ Transplant Act's valuable consideration clause. The valuable consideration clause has a noble purpose, which is to keep people from buying and selling human organs. In the case of kidney- paired donation, which is held to the highest of medical ethical standards, that purpose is obstructing the ability to save lives. By supporting this bill, we can give countless people a better chance for survival.

Let me be clear: paired-organ donation does not constitute the buying or selling of organs. If we believe as much, then we accept the idea that the gift of life has a monetary value. Charlie vehemently opposed this concept, and so should we.

Thousands of people die each year waiting on a transplant list, praying for the right match for a kidney. Paired donation will significantly increase the number of available kidneys each year, allowing even more people to live productive, healthy lives.

H.R. 710 honors the memory of our friend Charlie Norwood, it honors the memory of Nicholas Greene and his family, and it honors all those Americans who have lost their lives while waiting on a transplant list. As such, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in passing this critically important vehicle for giving the gift of life to others.

I thank my friend for yielding.

It has been interesting to listen to this debate over several days. Two thoughts stand out. One side says nonbinding resolutions achieve nothing and insult the troops. The other side has retired to opinion polls. The American people want to end this cost of human and financial treasure. They said so in the last election.

Thank God John Adams never consulted public opinion polls. There was never a time when more than a third of our Nation was in favor of independence and freedom. Thomas Paine said, ``If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.''

World War I was not America's war, no one attacked us; but an attack was made on freedom, and we responded. The doubters wondered why we would spend money on a war so far from our shores which didn't threaten us. The doughboys at Vimmy Ridge knew why they were there.

Hitler didn't attack us, he didn't even threaten us; he threatened all that freedom meant to the world. And while we were engaged in Southeast Asia after Pearl Harbor, we still sent troops across the channel on D Day. Many mistakes were made. Troops drowned before getting to the beach. Support aircraft bombed the wrong areas. 9,386 Americans died in the Battle of Normandy and are buried there on that hill.

But the Boys of Pointe Du Hoc climbed that ridge under withering machine gun fire. They silenced the machine guns, took out the embankments and walked across Europe, and in 11 months Europe was free. We then spent billions of dollars to rebuild a free Europe.

After World War II, we spent 50 years in a war against an idea. It was a battle of the two great religions, communism and freedom. When Whittaker Chambers left communism for freedom, he told his wife that he feared that he was moving to the losing side. He knew that communism could not survive if its people believed in a higher faith; he concluded that freedom could not survive if they did not. He had become a believer; he was unsure if we remained believers.

Many of those Cold War years were not pretty. Between 1970 and 1980, the Soviets increased their influence in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, Grenada, Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, South Yemen, Libya, Iraq and Syria. We watched and were timid. We even had Members of this very body go to some of those nations' dictators to apologize for our defense of what we believed; we believed in freedom.

When Israel watched its athletes murdered at Munich, we urged caution. When terrorists continued to kill Israelis, we continued to urge caution. For 21 years we urged that great friend of ours not to respond in kind. We were timid. After the attacks began against America, beginning with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers, we remained timid. We chose not to engage all of the opportunities we had to be bold. In the face of a declared war against our government and our people, we were timid.

And then September 11, 2001. We stood together on the Capitol steps in solidarity that lasted a good week, and then it became politics as usual.

I don't know if this fight for freedom can succeed when about half of our Nation doesn't know we are in it; nor do I know whether our Nation can come to an honest conclusion about what we are engaged in when all they see is the worst side of everything.

When I was last in Iraq, a young man told me about going through a city and all the residents came forth to say thank you and throw flowers. He asked the embedded reporter if that was worth a picture; he was told, ``That's not news.'' I don't know how the whole story gets told.

I do know this: This President knows that he and his commanders have made some wrong decisions, but he knows, as we must know, that this war has always been about the principle, the virtue, the idea of freedom, and to walk away now will have catastrophic consequences for its future.

President Bush believes that our Nation, more than any other, ought to defend the right of people to live free. That is the only victory we can ever have over an ideology that cannot survive in a free society.

President Bush knows why Lincoln said that he often found himself on his

knees because there was nowhere else to go.

He also knows, as did Lincoln, that a President must continue to fight for posterity, even when it becomes unpopular to do so.

If you believe, as I do, that the idea of freedom is still worth defending, you will vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding his time.

I met Charlie Norwood over 30 years ago. We were both young dentists in Georgia. He was the president of the Georgia Dental Association, and I was a young, newly elected dentist in the Georgia legislature. And his enthusiasm blew me away. Irrespective of what he was talking about, he only had two gears: neutral and full speed ahead. And his enthusiasm would capture you. And the bulldoggedness, the way he would put his teeth on an issue and fight for it without ever backing up was astonishing to me. Charlie did not have a coy bone in his body. From the day you met Charlie, you knew what he stood for on whatever the issue was.

Respectfully, he and I differed on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We spent many hours talking about it. He was adamant that I was wrong and he was right. But at no point did he ever raise his voice or show any disrespect for a position that I had taken that was different from his.

Charlie loved this institution. He loved the give-and-take of it. He loved the formality of it. We talked one day if he ever had any notion of running for the Senate, and he said he would never survive there. He would never survive not getting something done every day.

He treated this institution that he loved with great dignity. When he fought his fights, you knew he was going to fight fair. And for 30-plus years when I have been able to visit with him or know him on this issue or that, I always walked away from each encounter saying what a nice man, what a nice man.

For Gloria and the family, you are in our prayers. A psalmist has written that the Lord is close to the broken-hearted, and those who are crushed in spirit He saves.

May God give you peace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In January of 2005 University of Florida scientist Michael Atkinson, a gene therapy advocate, said: ``Two years ago, the embryonic stem cell field was hype, hype, hype. It is still that way in California, but I think that field has hit a bit of a wall.''

Why? Because after 25 years of animal research, embryonic stem cells have produced not one single instance of cure or even a palliative result. Not one.

They have produced some results, though. Their versatility is now believed to be a disadvantage. As explained in a letter to Senator John Kerry, signed by 57 noted scientists in the fields of biology, microbiology, chemistry and medicine, they said: ``Embryonic stem cells are difficult to develop into a stable cell line. They spontaneously accumulate genetic abnormalities in culture and are prone to uncontrollable growth and tumor formation when placed in animals.''

Why is this such an important issue for politicians? Why don't we pay some attention to what does work?

Multipurpose adult progenitor cells have been or are being assessed in human trials for treatment of spinal cord injury, Parkinson's, stroke, cardiac damage, multiple sclerosis and more. These cells can be taken from the patient so they have no risk of rejection and no ethical problems.

They are showing positive results in 72 different diseases, and I will submit that list for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this political effort to fix prices. Dr. Milton Friedman spoke on this issue 31 years ago. He noted that the proponents of increasing the minimum wage are well-meaning do-gooders, but they are playing politics with people's futures.

These ideas always have two groups of sponsors, the well-meaning do- gooders and the special interests who are using the do-gooders as front men.

Since there is absolutely no positive objective achieved by a minimum wage other than costing beginning workers their jobs, the real purpose is to reduce competition for unions so that it is easier to maintain the wages of their privileged members higher than the others.

The minimum wage says that employers must discriminate against those with low skills. If you have a job that is worth $5 an hour, you may not employ that person. It is illegal.

So who pays? The 1981 Minimum Wage Study Commission concluded that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduced teenage employment by 1 to 3 percent. From 1981 to 1990, the minimum wage did not rise, and teen unemployment fell from 25 percent to 15 percent. After the 1990 increase, teen unemployment rose to more than 20 percent. The 46 percent rise between 1977 and 1981 cost 644,000 jobs among teens alone.

Who else pays? Small business. A small business with five minimum wage positions would face more than $21,000 in additional wage costs. That does not include increases in payroll and unemployment taxes nor wage demands from other employees looking to stay ahead of the minimum wage. For many businesses, small businesses, a higher minimum wage simply equates to a major tax hike. That is what this is.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hyde for the time. I hope my colleagues will all join in support of H. Res. 994.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago I stood on the House floor and proclaimed that I was not without hope for America's ability to eliminate the scourge of terrorism. I was convinced that the people of this great Nation would, much like they did on December 8, 1941, come together to defeat a common enemy rooted in intolerance and fear.

To be sure, much is left to be accomplished. We cannot, we must not, ever forget the prayers we said that day, the tears we shed, and the memories of those who now belong to the ages.

Yes, Osama bin Laden has yet to personally receive justice, but over the course of the last 5 years, the international communications, financing, state sponsorship and success that al Qaeda enjoyed on September 11 has been significantly degraded. The world now knows that America will not bow to the forces of evil, but will instead fight until evil has been eradicated.

Congress has, as this resolution indicates, provided many of the necessary tools, but the people themselves also deserve most of the credit for this Nation's progress. While the threat of terrorism continues to loom in the distance, I believe we are safer as a nation because the people of this country are paying attention. They are the soldiers, they are the intelligence gatherers and they are the first line of defense. They are the personnel who were given a responsibility on September 11, 2001, to finally take the fight to terrorism, and they are succeeding.

Five years later I have seen an America that has exceeded our expectations. Rather than cowering to those who blackened the beautiful New York skyline on that day, the American people are emboldened in their resolve to live free and prosperous lives. They have renewed their faith and our faith in the hope of democracy. Freedom, as I stated then, continues to work

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast rollcall vote 418 through rollcall vote 426 on July 27, 2006, and July 28, 2006, because I was unavoidably detained on official business.

Had I been present, I would have cast the following votes: On rollcall vote No. 418, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 419, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 420, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 421, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall vote No. 422, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall vote No. 423, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 424, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall vote No. 425, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall vote No. 426, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast rollcall vote 382 on July 19, 2006, because I was unavoidably detained on official business at the White House. Had I been present, I would have cast the following vote: On rollcall No. 382, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 380, House passage of S. 2754, I inadvertently was recorded as voting ``nay.''

I would like the record to reflect the fact that I wanted my vote to be recorded as ``yea.''

This does not change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 438, of which I am an original cosponsor, which expresses the sense of the Congress that historic welfare reforms begun with the 1996 Welfare Reform Act should continue forward and continue to remain a priority.

I wrote in 1979 that it was not uncommon for a government program to be begun for noble worthy purposes and end up becoming an end in itself.

The more assistance that was distributed, the more necessary the program, and the means became the ends. Before the consideration of the welfare reform bill 10 years ago, there was no indication that some of these government programs would be improved, much less encourage self- sufficiency. This is not surprising, given how the welfare reform bill was described on this floor as, ``the most cruel and shortsighted view on public policy I have seen in 20 years'', and, ``a mean-spirited attack on children and poor families in America that fails every test of true welfare reform'', and ``a cruel attack on America's children''.

Well, as we mark the 10th anniversary of the signing of the bill, the statistics show the successes. Welfare caseloads have declined almost 65 percent. The poverty rate has declined. The child poverty rate has declined. The number of children lifted from poverty is 1.4 million, and the number of adults receiving welfare and working has more than doubled since 1996. The employment rate of never-married mothers has increased by almost 35 percent.

We have achieved great progress in eradicating poverty in this Nation. Ten years ago, thousands of poor people who deserve much more from their government were unwitting pawns in the game for power over the lives of others. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act has been enormously successful and we must continue to help those who truly need assistance while encouraging those who can support their families to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank my friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I moved to Georgia in 1969 from Minnesota, and I saw the abuses the Democrat leadership, the Democrat Governors and Democrat officeholders, were putting on black voters, restricting them the vote.

When I was elected to the Georgia house with David Scott in 1974, at one time I was one of 19 Republicans in a 180-member house.

As we started to build the Republican Party, the Democrats needed those black votes and started treating them differently; but treated them in multimember districts, and we know what that means: put a large district with four posts in it, not enough minority voters to nominate a black candidate to run, but enough to ensure that four white Democrats will win.

That finally went away under provisions of the Voting Rights Act. But in 2001 our last Democrat Governor brought them back. He gerrymandered our State so badly that he created multimember districts throughout the State with four posts in a large district, guaranteed not enough black voters to nominate a black candidate, but guaranteed enough to elect four white Democrats.

Did he get it precleared by the Department of Justice under the rules? No, he sued the Justice Department in a friendly court in Washington, D.C. and he spent $2 million of taxpayers' money on outside attorneys to get a favorable decision. And Georgia was back in multimember districts in the election of 2002. That is how keenly this act has worked in some States for clever Democrat Governors.

If you believe it must be done, and I frankly saw the success of it during my years in the legislature, if you believe it must continue to apply, why in the world don't you want it to apply to every jurisdiction? Why in the world shouldn't everybody be looked at on a regular basis?

It may not be the kind of amendment that you like, but the chairman was offered many opportunities to sit down and negotiate the language, and chose not to do that.

But if this Voting Rights Act is good for Georgia and 15 other States, it ought to be wonderful for the country, and you should support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House passage for S. 655 and I urge my colleagues on both sides to join me in supporting the measure.

S. 655 closely mirrors legislation I introduced in the House last year, H.R. 1569. Both of these measures seek the same objective, to make very few limited changes to current Federal law governing the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In light of the fact that the U.S. Senate approved an amended version of S. 655 last July, I worked with my friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, to bring this measure to the floor today. I commend him for all of his work on this project, and express my appreciation for his support and leadership on health policy matters, including the CDC.

The legislation before us today, S. 655, would allow research fellows at the Foundation to remain in their positions for as long as their privately funded fellowships remain in effect. Currently, such fellowships must end after 2 years.

Second, the bill gives the director of the CDC authority to provide facilities, utilities and support services to the Foundation, provided that doing so furthers the CDC's public health mission.

Third, it would allow the Secretary of HHS, on behalf of the CDC, to make up to $1.25 million in funding available to the Foundation each year, an increase from the current law level of $500,000.

This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent and has moved quickly through Energy and Commerce. The important part is the raising the funding part. For every dollar in public funds, the Foundation generates $30 in nongovernmental funding from the private sector. For example, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals paid $30,000 for an Asian rotavirus surveillance network meeting.

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals gave $2 million to emergency preparedness and the response fund.

Sanofi Pasteur paid $1.5 million for a meningcoccal vaccine study.

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals paid $3 million for a study of the blood inhibitors in hemophilia patients. These were of parochial interest to these corporations, but of general interest to the public health, and have been helpful to all of us.

In short, the Foundation leverages a modest amount of public money and uses that to generate a large amount of private nongovernmental support for the CDC and its mission. Passing S. 655

will help enable the Foundation to surpass this exemplary record of achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.