Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2863, the Department of Defense authorization bill.

As we continue assessing our national defense strategy to guard our Nation from threats at home and abroad, we must provide the necessary funding for our military needs to keep us safe.

We in Congress often praise our service men and women for the fine job they do, but lipservice is not enough. We must back up our words with action.

The 2006 defense appropriation bill does just that. Mr. Speaker, $366 billion

for our military will go to procure vital weapons systems, to further research, to develop new technologies, and to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also includes a 3.1-percent pay raise for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

Mr. Speaker, we have the most dominant military in the history of the world, and this bill will keep it that way. With this funding, we are giving our defenders the tools they need to keep us safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for the fiscal year 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act and the underlying legislation.

I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Ranking Member Murtha) and the staff of the Subcommittee on Defense for their tireless efforts in support of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are bravely defending us at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, the bill does a remarkable job of covering a wide scope of issues that are vitally important to our armed services, both Active and Reserve components, and it clearly meets the immediate needs of the warfighter.

I am particularly grateful for the work the Committee on Appropriations has done to fund the FA-22 program this year. The funding for 25 planes will go a long way towards providing stability for that program and assuring that America does maintain air dominance for the foreseeable future. I also wholeheartedly agree with the committee's assessment that the Department of Defense should look into the future needs for the FA-22 fighter and consider both a multiyear contract and extending the procurement life of the program beyond fiscal year 2009.

I am especially appreciative for the hard work of the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) in restoring the multiyear contract for the procurement of C- 130Js. This is an absolutely vital program, Mr. Speaker, for our military's current and future airlift capability, and I and our Nation are grateful for their strong support.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee for their hard work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Committee on Rules for yielding me this 1 minute.

I grew up in the Deep South in the late 1950s. Every other billboard in the South, in my part of Georgia, said, ``Get out of the United Nations.'' I did not think that was correct then, and I do not feel that way now. In fact, maybe we should have joined the League of Nations and we would never have had World War II. But if there is ever a time to reform an organization, it is absolutely now.

I am proud to support the rule and the bill, H.R. 2745, the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005.

The gentleman from California earlier talked about the Ten Commandments and the fact that we are burdening the U.N. with these 39 commandments. But really what he is suggesting is that they are not commandments at all. They become suggestions. It does not really matter, the number.

I think we need some teeth in this reform, and that is what the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act does. I am fully supportive. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this, and let us straighten out that organization.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about men's health and the importance of screening and preventive care.

This week is National Men's Health Week, and there is no better way to observe it than to encourage men across America to take control of their health.

Mr. Speaker, it is disturbing to learn that women are 100 percent more likely to visit a doctor for preventive screenings than men. This puts our friends, husbands, fathers, and grandfathers at risk for a host of preventable and manageable diseases from colon cancer to diabetes.

In honor of Men's Health Week, I encourage all men to get the care they need. Modern medicine has provided us with previously unimaginable ways to protect and prevent illness, and we should use them to their fullest.

I encourage men to ask their doctors which screenings and tests should be part of their health care plan. From cardio evaluation to detect heart disease, to colonoscopies to check for colorectal cancer, to digital prostate exams and PSA blood tests, men should take their health seriously.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 314 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 314 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2006.

The rule allows for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

The rule provides that under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. It waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill.

Except as specified in the resolution, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.

Finally, it provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2862 funds our Nation's priorities without swelling our Federal budget. It is a bill of fiscal restraint, yet one that increases funding to some of our most important weapons in the fight on terror and crime, including the FBI, the DEA, and State and local law enforcement agencies.

As we continue to reassess our security and law enforcement priorities to meet threats abroad and at home, we must provide funding for programs that protect our communities. This bill accomplishes that goal.

Under H.R. 2862, funding for the Department of Justice will increase to almost $57.5 billion, with much of that additional money going to the agencies that are helping us fight the war on terror, the war on drugs and the war against gang violence.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation will see an increase of $542 million above the fiscal year 2005 level. The additional funding will go toward enhanced agent training and the hiring of additional analysts and translators to keep the FBI on the cutting edge of the war on terror. Increased funding means greater information technology, better counterintelligence capabilities and improved efforts to fight white- collar and gang crime.

The United States Marshals will see an increased funding of $41 million over last year, while the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, will have $67 million additional to assist State and local law enforcement officials.

H.R. 2862 also funds important prevention programs for violence against women, gang crime, and juvenile delinquency. All of this adds up to better protection for our communities. This is the kind of fundamental support that Americans rely on Congress to pass. These are true national priorities, not frivolous programs tailored to special interests. This is legislation that deserves our support.

H.R. 2862 also funds our science agencies and provides for a vision of space exploration that has fascinated minds, both young and old, for generations, and provided many breakthrough technologies.

Mr. Speaker, I personally hope we will continue to prioritize science funding to ensure that our Nation remains at the forefront of scientific research and development into the future.

Through State Department funding, we have earmarked $1.5 billion to continue worldwide security improvements and the replacement of vulnerable United States embassies around the world.

Finally, and this is a very important point, H.R. 2862 provides $590 million for the Small Business Administration, and it supports a record level of business loans to help entrepreneurs across our great Nation access capital to start a small business. So much of our U.S. economy, of course, is driven, as we know, by small businesses.

As we begin the debate on this rule and the underlying appropriations bill, let us keep two things in mind: one, we must hold fast to our spending limits. To quote President Bush, ``The American people deserve to have their tax dollars spent wisely or not at all.''

Second, we must commit wholly and without reserve to funding our Nation's security and law enforcement priorities. Protecting our citizens from harm is the utmost duty of this Congress and our government. This protection stems from Federal agencies that stop gang violence, crack down on drug trafficking, and give counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts the full support that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that this bill does provide $2.6 billion for assistance to State and local law enforcement for crime-fighting initiatives, and that is actually $1 billion above the President's request, in response to the gentlewoman's remarks about the Obey amendment.

Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules could not waive points of order against the gentleman's amendment. While the intent of his amendment is admirable, the means of his amendment does not comply with the rules of the House. The amendment would seek to offset an increase in funding for States and local law enforcement through a tax increase; and such changes in tax policy, as we know, are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Therefore, the amendment, as written, was not germane to H.R. 2862 and subject to a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

In response to the gentleman's question, I do not know the exact number of waivers that were granted.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, that was not part of my opening statement. You may be correct, but I am not sure of that number.

The committee has provided a number of waivers. I am just not sure what that number is.

Certainly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, of course we represent that the President's request for State and local law enforcement was not sufficient. That is why the committee took the necessary steps to restore funding in a responsible manner. As an example, the gentleman from Indiana was just talking about some of that restoration. The committee restored approximately a billion of the $1.4 billion reduction that the President requested.

This bill provides $2.6 billion for crime-fighting initiatives, including the following restorations in funding: $355 million to reimburse States for criminal alien detention; $334 million for juvenile delinquency prevention and accountability programs; $387 million for violence against women and prosecution programs; $348 million for the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants Program; $520 million for Community Oriented Policing Service, the COPS Program; and yes, $60 million for meth hot spots.

I would suggest to the gentleman in regard to his question about the point of order, the gentleman's amendment would not be subject to a point of order if the gentleman would alter his amendment to include offsets for his increase from within the programs under the jurisdiction of SSJC Appropriations Act. The amendment would then comply with the rules of the House and could be considered and voted upon by Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) that just recently in the homeland security funding bill that we passed last month, we provided for $3.7 billion for first responders. The House-passed bill included grants to high-threat areas, firefighters, and emergency management.

Since September 11, 2001, the Congress has provided $32.4 billion to our first responders in funding their needs, such as terrorism prevention and preparedness, general law enforcement, firefighter responders, training 811,275 police, fire, and emergency medical personnel, and, yes, in this bill that we are talking about this morning, $520 million for the COPS Program.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of the importance of the underlying bill in funding and providing for the necessary tools for our law enforcement that defends the American people against crime and terror from sources both foreign and domestic.

H.R. 2862 funds our law enforcement needs, and it funds them responsibly. While some on the other side have called out for more funding of this program or that program, they fail to realize the limited funds available in the Federal budget. Again, H.R. 2862 supports and provides for the operations of the Department of Justice with $5.8 billion for the FBI, $1.7 billion for the DEA, and $800 million for the United States Marshal Service. Without question, this bill funds those who put their lives on the line every day to make sure the American people are secure and safe as they go about their daily activities.

Mr. Speaker, this appropriation also provides the necessary funding for the Department of Commerce to strengthen economic growth and protect the intellectual property rights so essential to technical and societal development, and because of the importance of technological strength, this bill also includes a responsible level of funding for NASA and the National Science Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2862 not only supports our law enforcement agencies here at home, but it also supports the State Department and our needs abroad. From funding to reinforce our vulnerable embassies to funding for improved training of State Department personnel, this legislation provides $9.5 billion to strengthen our relationships overseas and wage the diplomatic war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for all of their labor and time on this bill.

I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Congress on its successful, pro-growth economic agenda.

In the last month alone, the United States economy created 78,000 new jobs. Take the last 2 years into account, and our economy has created more than 3.5 million jobs.

Mr. Speaker, this growth can be partially credited to the good legislation Congress has passed, legislation that lowers taxes, lets Americans keep more of their hard-earned money, reduces unnecessary regulation, supports our small businesses, and, above all, it encourages economic growth.

Our policies are working. More Americans hold jobs today than ever before. Homeownership is at a near record level, with nearly 70 percent of American families owning their own homes. Small businesses continue to flourish, and our economy is showing steady growth.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our economic agenda is the right solution for American families. We will continue passing good legislation to build a stronger economy for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, the smallest State in the Union has now replaced the biggest State in the Union as one of those States in a crisis state in its medical liability insurance. Okay, there may be those in this body who would argue that Texas is no longer the largest State in the Union; but, Madam Speaker, the good news is that 2 years ago Texas faced up to the challenge of medical liability reform and passed a law on the State level, affirmed it with a constitutional amendment that put a cap on non-economic damages and medical liability lawsuits. This allowed more insurance to come to the State, and, more importantly, Texas Medical Liability Trust, the largest medical liability writer in the State of Texas, has reduced liability fees by 17 percent.

But in the State of Rhode Island, which recently joined the other States in the Union that are in crisis, doctors there are experiencing liability insurance premium increases from 175 to 200 percent since 2002 and fully one-half of their physicians, 48 percent, responded to a recent survey saying they were thinking about doing something else.

Madam Speaker, we passed a good bill in this House 2 years ago that nationwide put a cap on non-economic damages of medical liability lawsuits. I urge this body to take it up, and I urge the other body to pass it as well.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 298 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 298 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2528, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2006. The rule allows for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill.

It authorizes the Chair to accord priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present for consideration the rule for the very first Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriation bill. This important subcommittee was formed to take an all-inclusive look at the programs related to the quality of life for the brave servicemen and -women who currently serve America in the Armed Forces, their families and those men and women who sacrificed so much for our freedom in the past.

I also believe the bill before us achieves this important goal in a fiscally responsible manner. The new subcommittee held 14 hearings this year covering a wide range of issues pertaining to their new jurisdiction, and I believe their product is a strong one.

The underlying bill totals $121.8 billion of which $85.2 billion is discretionary and $36.6 billion is mandatory. The discretionary funding level represents a $1 billion increase above the President's request and $5.9 billion above last year's enacted level. The bill funds the Department of Veterans Affairs at $68.1 billion, $2.3 billion above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, and $635 million above the 2006 budget request.

Particularly important is the $21 billion for veterans medical services, $1.6 billion above the 2005 enacted level and a billion dollars more than the budget request. This is an 8.5 percent increase over last year's level, and an 18.2 percent increase in medical services from fiscal year 2004.

Perhaps most importantly, and what I heard the most about from the veterans back home in northwest Georgia, is that this bill does not contain any new fees for veterans medical services or prescription drugs. The bill restores funding for long-term care to the level it was in the fiscal year 2005 appropriation legislation, and the bill directs the Secretary to work with the National Association of State Veterans Homes to generate an agreeable policy to make the program function more effectively for the veterans and for the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, there are two State veterans homes in Georgia that are hugely important to many aging citizens and their families, and I am personally grateful for this measure.

Additionally, the bill includes language directing the Department to spend more than $2.2 billion on specialty mental health care in fiscal year 2006, an important issue that many Members of Congress brought to the attention of the chairman. The subcommittee also included report language directing the VA to double the funding available for mental health research.

For the Department of Defense, the bill provides a total of $53.5 billion, and within this total is funding for military construction, for family housing construction and maintenance, basic allowance for housing payments, facilities maintenance, modernization, and environmental restoration.

Also included in this bill is $20 billion for the Defense health program. This is an increase of $1.8 billion above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, and it is $192.3 million above the 2006 Presidential budget request.

This amount will sufficiently allow for ongoing preparation of our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines while caring also for their families at home.

Finally, the subcommittee has allowed for greatly enhanced interaction between the Department of Defense and the VA to explore joint ventures that can enhance a continuity of services provided between the two departments.

Mr. Speaker, in a tough budget year such as this, we have a responsibility to make sure that scarce resources are allocated in the most effective and efficient manner possible. This bill achieves that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge Subcommittee Chairman Walsh, Ranking Subcommittee Member Edwards and, of course, Chairman Lewis for their vision and hard work on this bill. I look forward to this debate, and I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In regard to the gentleman's comments about mental health care for our veterans, for the first time ever, the President proposed and Congress provided a dedicated pool of resources, actually $2.2 billion, to provide specialty mental health care to veterans, particularly those who are returning from the combat area, as so many are now.

In order to better serve combat veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs is directed to do a comprehensive study on post-traumatic stress disorder, focusing on improving mental health, mental health research, mental health care and access to information. In addition, in encouraging better cooperation and care of veterans and active military personnel, VA and the Department of Defense are directed to develop a plan to improve seamless transition on internal and external obstacles to transition and recommendations that would continue to enhance the continuity of care.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to total spending on VA medical care, let us just go back to 1999 and come forward to 2005 over the last 6 years. In 1999, VA medical care appropriations were $17.8 billion. In fiscal year 2005, that number was $29.9 billion. The increases over those 6 years:

1999 to 2000, 9.2 percent;

2000 to 2001, 11.3 percent;

2001 to 2002, a lean year, as we all know, because of the economy and 9/11; nevertheless, a 4.6 percent increase;

2002 to 2003, 11.9, an almost 12 percent increase;

2003 to 2004, another 11.4 percent increase;

2004 to 2005, a 6.2 percent increase.

The commitment is there. Absolutely the numbers show it. I do not see how anybody could refute that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In regard to the comment about the waiting time for our veterans to receive care, we had several years ago, and I want to respond, of course, to the gentlewoman from California about her concerns, but there was a waiting time of greater than 6 months for up to 350,000 veterans. I think most of those were in Category, priority level, 7 and 8. But because of increased funding and policy change, that number was reduced to 36,000.

We do not want to have, Mr. Speaker, any of our veterans having to wait 6 months or more. But to cut that down from hundreds of thousands to 36,000, I think, is significant progress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of its importance to the men and women who have and who continue to serve and protect America.

Mr. Speaker, our service men and women sacrifice so much for the safety and security of this Nation, and we have the responsibility to ensure that they have everything that they need, not only to succeed in their duties, but also to enjoy the quality of life that they deserve.

This bill represents the culmination of a lot of hard work and a lot of cooperation to not only completely support our service men and women but to also do so in the most helpful and fiscally responsible way. With a total amount of $121.8 billion, this bill includes an overall increase of $5.8 billion in discretionary spending from last year. Specifically, the Department of Veterans Affairs will receive $2.3 billion more than the previous year. The VA medical care increase from 2005 to 2006, I gave the number earlier for the previous 5 years, another 8.5 percent increase. They will receive, they the VA medical services, an increase of $1.6 billion. And again, I emphasize that there will be no new fees for either veterans medical services or for prescription drugs.

Today represent a victory for our service men and women in all stages of service from recruitment to retirement. And I appreciate all of my colleagues who have spoken on behalf of the rule and in support of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards); and the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), for leading the way and ensuring the necessary funds to provide for the quality of life of our service men and women.

I want to encourage my colleagues to support both this rule and the underlying bill for the sake of those who spend their lives defending ours.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Blumenauer amendment that would shift funding for the 2005 BRAC round into accounts that would be used to finish the cleanup of all the installations closed in previous rounds, all of which, by the way, occurred over 10 years ago.

The Department of Defense is currently conducting a review of the military's overseas facility structure as well as the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review, the QDR. These are important and very telling studies that have not yet been completed that will give us in Congress a much clearer picture of our military's future landscape and needs; and meanwhile, we should take the time to finish the job we started in the late 80s.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday morning I flew home to Marietta, Georgia, in my district, where I had the pleasure of meeting one of the nine BRAC commissioners as he toured Naval Air Station Atlanta in the 11th district. While we

were there, a comment was made that the commander of the facility would like to have rolled the 40-plus planes, Humvees, and Cobra helicopters out on the tarmac for review, but they were all deployed in the war on terror.

Mr. Chairman, the DOD has recommended that these assets be realigned elsewhere; yet I am concerned that proper due diligence has not been paid to consider the overall force structure needs of the military, the very purpose of the QDR that will not be completed for months.

If BRAC is to occur, I believe that it can be carried out in a much more effective manner once we have a better idea about what the future holds. So for that reason, I believe that we should allocate our scarce resources to completing the cleanup necessary for those communities already impacted by BRAC to reclaim the land and put it to good use.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I fully support the Blumenauer amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). And I want to tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, how enthused I am to be an original cosponsor on H.R. 2574, the Respect for Life Embryonic Stem Cell Act of 2005.

I think that the gentleman has an excellent idea of solving this moral, ethical problem that we spent so much time talking about on the floor of this great body yesterday in the passage of those two pieces of legislation, the one, of course, to expand the opportunity for obtaining umbilical cord blood with up to 150,000 umbilical cord banks that would communicate with each other in regard to trying to match the stem cells obtained in that blood to the specific recipient who is suffering from one of these terrible diseases that we have heard so much about. I am talking about things like juvenile type I diabetes. I am talking about spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's, leukemia.

That was the one bill. And, of course, also in that bill would expand the banking ability of bone marrow where adult stem cells are plentiful. That bill I think passed this body with maybe one dissenting vote out of 435. That does not happen very often that you get such a unanimous support.

The other bill, of course, the Castle/DeGette bill, is the one that caused a great controversy, consternation. Not partisan concern, because we had Members, both Republican and Democratic Members, for and opposed to that bill. Indeed, the authors were the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), a Republican Member, and the co-author, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a Democrat; so it was a very, I think, in some ways it was a good thing even though I was very, very much opposed to the bill and disappointed to be on the losing side. There were 194 of us, though, who felt very strongly that we did not want to go in that direction of destroying embryos, even though the proponents, Mr. Speaker, used the term, hey, these are throwaway babies.

I even heard somebody say in their time in the well, Mr. Speaker, that these embryos, these frozen embryos were just going to be flushed down the toilet. Well, as we know, my colleagues know this week we had, I do not know how many of the hundred snowflake babies, the babies that infertile couples have adopted, the frozen embryos with the permission of the natural parents and carried these precious children to term. I think 22 of them were roaming around Capitol Hill yesterday and had an opportunity to be over at the White House with President Bush. You ask one of those moms or dads if those were throwaway babies. Indeed, they were not. They were precious lives. And I am just so thankful that that opportunity is there.

I will say this, if my colleague from Maryland will permit me to digress just a little bit on this subject, reproductive endocrinologists are superspecialist OB/GYNs. Their work involves primarily infertility. And they are wonderful doctors. They are so well trained and it is amazing the things that they can do with infertile couples, whether the infertility is a female problem with a sparsity or lack of sufficient number of eggs or whether it is a male infertility where the sperm count is extremely low, and maybe like in 25 percent of the cases you just do not know. But the success rates that they achieve is remarkable.

One of the most exciting things that they do and have been doing now for, gosh, 15, almost 20, years is in vitro fertilization. But when they first started that technology of actually stimulating a woman's ovaries to produce multiple eggs, not without some risks because when you do that with injections, the ovaries swell, they get quite large, and of course there is some danger there, as all of us in the medical profession, especially the OB/GYNs know, Mr. Speaker. But they do. It is called hyperstimulation when it gets to the dangerous stage. But even before that, it is superstimulation so that they can obtain multiple eggs.

So then there is this fertilization in the petri dish, whether it is the husband's sperm or the donor sperm if the husband is azospermic, has no sperm. So you are getting really so many of these fertilized eggs, many more than you can safely put back into the uterus. And that has created, really in a way, somewhat of a dilemma with these so- called throwaway frozen embryos, some 100,000 of them.

I think I want to hopefully sometime soon talk to my colleagues in that specialty of reproductive endocrinology and say, first of all, there should be a limit to the number of embryos that can actually be implanted in a woman's uterus, and you should never put more in than they can safely conceive.

What has been done in this country and others is if all of the sudden six or eight are implanted with the hopes that two or three or maybe just one will take and be a successful pregnancy, in those situations where lo and behold five or more take, then what is typically recommended is something called ``pregnancy reduction'' where the doctor is able to go in actually at a certain stage with a needle and destroy two or three or four sort of indiscriminately. Not knowing whether you were getting the boys or the girls or an equal mix of the same or the most intelligent or the least intelligent, the one that will grow up to be a doctor or the one that will grow up to be a lawyer. Pretty unethical in my estimation, Mr. Speaker, a pretty unethical procedure to be doing or recommending to a couple. And I think that we need to get away from that.

We need to be a little more careful and only implant a total number so that if every one of them took, that it would be safe for them to carry to near term so that all of those children would survive. And also in getting into the situation that maybe, Mr. Speaker, couples need more counseling when they go to their reproductive endocrinologist and they sign up for IVF, in vitro fertilization, maybe they need a little more counseling as to, well, how many children do you hope to have. And if they say, well, only two; I would certainly not want to have more than two children, then I think it is unethical to do this egg retrieval process and get 10 or 12 eggs and fertilize all of them and then freeze the extras when the couple had absolutely no intention of ever having a family of six or eight or 10 children.

Now, some people do. We have a Member on our side of the aisle, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), who has 12 precious children, and he is still a young man. But it is an amazing thing that we have really created this problem ourselves by not regulating this specialty.

So I have digressed a little bit and I hope the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) will understand. I wanted to make that point because I think it is very important. But what the gentleman recommended here, this is not some mad scientific proposal. Not at all. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is one of the most thoughtful Members of this body, Mr. Speaker, and I think colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize that.

He is serving in his seventh term. He is not a rookie. He is a very, very bright Ph.D., physiologist, who taught in medical school. He has taken advanced course work in embryology, so he does understand, Mr. Speaker. He is thinking about what can we do to solve this problem where we in this country do not have to fight about this moral, ethical divide. He does not want us to have to cross that divide and we do not have to.

So I really commend the gentleman, and this bill I have great support for because we need some studies and we need Federal funding of those studies and we are not destroying a human life in the process. So his allowing me to come and spend a few minutes here to be with him to discuss this is most appreciated on my part.

I plan to stay here for a little while and if the gentleman would like for me to comment further, I would be glad to do so.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Bradley amendment that would postpone the BRAC recommendations until 1 year after several important actions by the Department of Defense occur, including the recommendations of the Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure are implemented by the Secretary of Defense and the Armed Services Committees receive the quadrennial defense review. These are important and very telling studies that have not yet been completed that will give us in Congress a much clearer picture of our military's future landscape and needs.

For example, Mr. Chairman, I just returned a few moments ago from my district where I had the pleasure of meeting one of the nine BRAC commissioners as he toured Naval Air Station Atlanta in my district. While we were there, a comment was made that the commander of the facility would like to have rolled out the 40-plus planes, Humvees, and Cobra helicopters on the tarmac for review, but they are all deployed in the war on terror. Mr. Chairman, the DOD has recommended that these assets be realigned elsewhere. Yet I am concerned that proper due

diligence has not been paid to consider the overall force structure needs of the military, the very purpose of the QDR that will not be completed for months.

If BRAC is to occur, I believe that it can be carried out in a much more effective manner once we have a better idea about what the future holds.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to honor the life and career of Marietta teacher Rose Lee Wing, who passed away on April 30. She will be deeply missed by a grateful community and scores of former students who were fortunate enough to call her teacher.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to focus your attention not on my words so much, but on this portrait of this beautiful, beautiful person.

Born the youngest of seven children in Kingston, North Carolina, Rose graduated from Meredith College. After completing a master's degree in education at Temple University, she moved to Marietta, Georgia in 1938.

She married Steve Mosher Wing and was blessed with two children: Rose, an attorney, and Steve, Jr., a physician, my friend at the Medical College of Georgia. She was later blessed with

two grandchildren, Jennifer Wing and Molly Wing Kintz.

Mrs. Wing taught in the Marietta School System for 47 years, instructing students at Waterman Street Elementary, Marietta High School, Westside Elementary School, and Hickory Hills Elementary School. She taught social studies and organized the annual school social science fair.

When she finally retired in 1987, she had touched the lives of hundreds of students. My daughter, Phyllis, was lucky enough to be among those students. In fact, I remember how hard Phyllis worked on her social science project, ``The History of Kenneth Stone Hospital,'' for Mrs. Wing's class.

Mrs. Wing expected hard work from all of her students. Former pupils will tell you how she insisted that they recite all 50 States and capitals in front of the class. You see, Mrs. Wing did not just teach the facts; she wanted her students to learn how to stand up and be outspoken.

Rose Wing organized her classroom to make everyone feel included. She did not stand in front of the class and lecture, but instead she taught from the center of the room with the desks surrounding her. It was these smaller decisions that truly showed Mrs. Wing's dedication to helping students learn.

The brilliance of her teaching method was that it provided students with the opportunity to participate, while at the same time teaching discipline and respect.

After teaching four generations of children, Rose Wing always had a plethora of stories to share, many memories, and memorable students.

Her students included Georgia State Representative Steve Tumlin; former State Representative Fred Bentley; Actress Joanne Woodward, the wife of Paul Newman; former State Representative Jack Vaughn; and former Marietta mayor, Ansley Meaders, sat in her classroom to learn.

Mrs. Wing loved seeing her former students, hearing about their lives and seeing how they developed. She often said that there was no more rewarding experience than teaching because teachers have the ability to directly affect a community.

She enjoyed seeing her students grow up to become community leaders. She felt appreciated in the process.

On the day she retired in 1987, Mrs. Wing was welcomed to school by rows of her students holding red roses in the form of an arc. As she walked through, the students cheered.

Even after retirement, Rose Wing kept on giving. She became a community volunteer. In fact, she was the first volunteer at the Marietta Welcome Center. Rose Wing was a fixture not only in our schools but in our community.

Mr. Speaker, Rose Wing will be missed, but not forgotten. Her legacy lives on in the Marietta school system with the Rose Wing Award for Tenure; and without question, Rose Wing's memory lives on in the students she taught, who continue to strengthen the Marietta community through leadership and involvement, and in the appreciative parents of those students.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in honoring the memory of a great teacher and a great lady.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith's) Stem Cell Therapeutics and Research Act of 2005, and commend the gentleman for his courageous and principled stand for the sanctity of life.

As a physician Member, I know that significant successes are being reported from the use of umbilical cord stem cells in the treatment of 67 diseases, including sickle cell anemia, leukemia, osteoporosis and lymphoma. There is great promise in this research. Umbilical cord stem cells, unlike embryonic stem cells can be matched to a recipient by blood type, gender, ethnicity, that results in fewer tissue rejections.

Compare this to embryonic stem cells. Aside from the fact that harvesting embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of innocent life, embryonic stem cells are gathered without knowledge of blood cell type, without assurance that they are free from infection, and without screening for genetic defects. These embryonic stem cells may be mismatched, carry infection, or have genetic defects with cancer- producing potential.

There is a better way, Mr. Speaker. It is H.R. 2520, which enhances Federal

funding for expanding the already successful use of umbilical cord stem cells. When you consider the ethics and the science and the debate, it is clear that cord blood stem cells are the right choice for our Federal funding and scientific support.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in opposition, strong opposition, to H.R. 810, not as a physician, not as an obstetrician-gynecologist, but as a pro-life Catholic who firmly believes in the sanctity of life.

I have sat here for almost 3 hours listening to every word of the debate as part of my job as a member of the rebuttal team, and here is my legal pad of notes and rebuts. Most of those rebuts are against people on my side of the aisle, because this issue is clearly a bipartisan issue. You have Members, Republicans and Democrats, who are for the bill, indeed the authors, and you have Republicans and Democrats who are in opposition to the bill. So I have got plenty of rebuttals that I could make, but very briefly, I will just mention one or two.

One of the gentlemen on my side of the aisle said that we need the Federal Government, we need the Federal Government involved in embryonic stem cell research and the funding of that to provide ethical guidelines to the States. You remember that comment, maybe an hour or so ago? Well, if the Federal Government is involved in a program where taxpayer dollars are spent to destroy human life, what ethical advice can they give to my State of Georgia, I ask? I think none.

You see, I firmly believe in the sanctity of life, and I believe that life does begin at conception, and these embryos are definitely living human beings. The gentleman just said a few minutes ago that ``I can't imagine that a 14-week blastocyst has the same value as a human being.'' Indeed, it does.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to look at these charts and what we know with these so-called frozen throwaway embryos that nobody wants. Well, there are hundreds today of these snowflake children, and there will be many more when people realize this is available to them.

Yes, it starts as an embryo, just a few cells, and then a blastocyst. But then here is a 20-week ultrasound with a beating heart and brain and limbs and moving, and then here is the final result.

Let me just say in conclusion, the gentleman from New Jersey talked about his development, his growth and development, and going backwards in his life. He stood in this well and said, ``I am an adult man today. But yesterday I was a teenager, and before that I was a toddler.'' But he did not go the opposite direction and say ``In 20 years I will be a senior citizen, and after that I may be in a nursing home and I may have Alzheimer's. I may be a vegetable.''

You would not want to destroy those lives, any more than the embryos at the beginning of life.