Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, many of our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, and I have been listening to this debate for the last 5 hours, have lamented our efforts to highlight objections to not only this bill, but also the underlying process by which all of the appropriations bills, 11, and then 12 later on, will be brought to the House floor this year.

I believe it is crucial that we take this opportunity to register our strong opposition to the process, while I rise in support of the gentlewoman from North Carolina's amendment to cut $1.2 billion out of this homeland security appropriations bill, and that is not a small chunk of change. But it is a process which we believe is neither fair nor open nor in the best interests of the American taxpayer.

Late last year the new majority in this House assured the American public that it would bring transparency and openness to the appropriations process and specifically to this practice which we and the general public very well know now, as they campaigned on this issue last fall, the practice of earmarking.

At a minimum we believe that this commitment, and I think the American people believe as well, or they wouldn't have gained the majority, that it would equal that of the Republican majority in the last Congress, that the sponsors of earmarks would be identified in the bills themselves, whether they were authorizing bills, appropriations bills, indeed even in narrowly drawn tax bills, so that Members could debate and challenge those earmarks if they were found to be egregious on the House floor. Apparently the Democratic majority has very different definitions of ``transparency'' and ``openness'' than we do and than the American people do that elected them to this new majority.

The respected chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, how long has he been in this body, 39 years? I think he is going on his 20th term. He has been a former member of and chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He is one of the most respected Members, one of the most knowledgeable Members. He clearly knows what he is doing in regard to not putting these earmarks in the appropriations bill, which he knew would be coming to this floor under an open rule so that we could have a free, a fair, an open debate.

We would accept some earmarks. They are not all bad. Certainly they are not all bad. But the ones that are egregious, that we should have an opportunity to debate on both sides of the aisle and strike.

Now, the chairman has said, well, you know, we are going to go ahead after we finish all these bills, these 11 bills, we are going to publish all of the earmarks that we are considering airdropping in the conference report. They are going to have transparency. They are going to see the light of day, because we are going to put them in the Congressional Record 2 months from now, in August.

But that does not give the Members of this body on either side of the aisle an opportunity. Yes, you can see them, and maybe it will remove the opportunity for the Senate to use a point of order to strike some of these amendments that have been airdropped because all of a sudden they have been published in the Congressional Record. That is not the same as having the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, on the floor to debate and to vote up or down some of these egregious earmarks.

Now, what I want to suggest in my time remaining, I want to suggest to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, why don't you simply then in August bring a bill?

I thank the Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest is that very easily a package of these earmarks, I don't know how many are going to be put in the final conference report; if there are 30,000 earmarks, maybe 15,000 of them in the aggregate in these 11 bills will be published in the Congressional Record and then eventually airdropped in the conference report.

Well, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that a bill or resolution through the

Appropriations Committee could come to the floor of this House under an open rule, and let us at that point take each one of those earmarks, maybe specified for each of the 11 appropriations bills, and then have our opportunity to vote up or down.

I have been listening to the debate, again, like I said, for a couple or 3 or 4 hours, and nobody has made that suggestion. So I want to try to improve the process, Mr. Chairman, and I want to make that suggestion to the Democratic leadership and to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It is not too late to do the right thing. We feel like you have done the wrong thing and shut the process down. It is not what the people want, but it is not too late to see the error.

Mr. Chairman, again, the comments that these are dilatory amendments, the subcommittee chairman from North Carolina saying, well, you want to strike a little bit of change here and there, and you are just trying to slow the process down. In some cases, yes. In some cases, like the amendment that we are discussing right now, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, the gentleman from Washington Mr. Reichert, who is a ranking member on the subcommittee, these are not dilatory amendments. These are important policy amendments.

But we are outraged by the policy. And to take my time and make the suggestion of what you can do to correct this, I hope you will take that to heart. I hope the chairman, Mr. Chairman, will take that to heart and give us an opportunity, if not now, at least in August, to vote on these earmarks. That is exactly what you promised the American people, and you need to deliver on that promise.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the second-degree amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) in regard to cutting something like $7.5 million out of this section of the bill.

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the subcommittee, spoke a little earlier in the evening and questioned the logic, you know, why that amount. Well, if you do the math and you look at that section, Mr. Chairman, that cut is about 7 percent. That amount reflects the same amount of overspending in this bill. The $2 billion is about 7 percent more than the President requested, and actually a 14.5 to 15 percent overall increase. So I think that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) is absolutely appropriate in asking for a reasonable, fiscally responsible cut in a $120 million spending category.

Mr. Chairman, another North Carolinian was heard by me to say this morning, after the chairman of the Appropriations Committee had spoken and said what we are trying to do, what the Republican minority is trying to do is shut down the process. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Robin Hayes, said was, we're not trying to shut down the process, we are trying to clean up the process.

Just a few minutes ago, before the last motion, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, and I paraphrase, it is not our fault that the former majority couldn't get their work done in the previous Congress. Well, I would say to him, Mr. Chairman, it is not our fault that the new majority and the Appropriations Committee spent 3\1/2\ months debating an emergency supplemental for funding of our troops with benchmarks and timelines, Mr. Chairman, that would call for the withdrawal of our troops at a date certain, no matter what the situation was. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, there were a number of amendments in that process to bring the troops home immediately and not to give victory a chance. And, Mr. Chairman, it is not our fault that they refused to listen, this new majority, and insisted on milking this process for every ounce of political fodder that they could get out of it, knowing full well that in the final analysis they had a losing proposition. And they did lose that debate before we went home for the Memorial Day recess. So, that is not our fault.

So, Mr. Chairman, if the chairman of the Appropriations Committee says, you know, we weren't able to put these earmarks in the appropriations bill under the sunshine and the light of day, as always has been done, because we ran out of time. And, Mr. Chairman, I have heard it said that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee feels very strongly that he wants to get all these bills done before the 4th of July recess to do just as good a job as our distinguished former chairman of the Appropriations Committee Mr. Lewis did last year and the year before that in the 109th Congress.

Mr. Chairman, it is not our fault that the new majority wasted 3\1/2\ months and were not able to get these earmarks together in time to put in these bills like they should have done. That's not our fault.

Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I have a privileged motion at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I have a privileged motion at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 22: Strike section 527 (page 65, beginning at

line 17).

I thank my former colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong opposition to the rule and the

underlying legislations, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Once again, the Democratic majority brings to the floor a closed rule on a bill that Members of this body would love to have the opportunity to make better through the amendment process. This legislation has not been given a committee hearing or even vetted in a markup. Instead, the Democrats in the House have said that they know best, period, in the 110th Congress.

Over 45 percent of the bills have come up under our closed rule, and less than 2 percent have enjoyed what we call an open rule that allows for full and honest debate, whether it's debate from a Democrat or a Republican.

Now their legislation was sent over to the other body in January, where they changed it, they amended it. So why, I don't understand, why do the House Democrats insist on shutting their colleagues in the people's House out of the process? It's okay in the other body, but it's not okay here.

Well, this new majority has sent a clear message when it comes to valuing the input of their colleagues. They don't.

On bills that clear committees unanimously, bills where both parties rush to the floor to applaud the final legislative process, the Democrats allow amendments on those. Let them offer them and be debated. But on an issue where the American people hold deeply differing views, the Democrats shut out ideas and debate.

By once again debating this stem cell legislation under the same closed rule, the Democratic leadership is saying to the American people this issue is the same today as it was in January, as it was last summer in the 109th Congress, as it was, indeed, back in August of 2001.

However, the reality is that this issue has fundamentally changed. Science is moving faster than bureaucracy and, yes, even faster than politics. Scientific breakthrough after scientific breakthrough shows that there are other ways to achieve the hope, the hope of medical cures, the new therapeutic treatments without any collateral damage mandated by the legislation that we are debating today.

Science has, indeed, outrun politics, and the American people, they deserve a full and comprehensive debate on a morally contentious issue such as this.

That's the reason that I offered an amendment, my colleague referred to it earlier, to the Rules Committee yesterday that would have replaced this ethically divisive legislation with a bill introduced by Representative Roscoe Bartlett, the gentleman from Maryland, and myself. We call it the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy Enhancement Act.

This amendment would authorize the use of Federal funds to research alternative and ethical ways to extract embryonic life or pluripotent stem cells. My amendment would authorize the use of Federal funds to research alternative and, yes, ethical ways to extract these embryonic- like, or we call them pluripotent, stem cells; and that's what we should be debating on the floor of this esteemed body today, legislation that sidesteps the ethical questions of embryonic stem cell research altogether.

We don't have to go down this road that totally divides us. Some on the Republican side, some on the Democratic side, pro-life, pro-choice, if we can avoid that division, I think we ought to embrace the opportunity to do so.

That's why, reluctantly, I have to come and stand and oppose a rule. I have great respect for my colleagues on the majority side of the Rules Committee that I worked with for the last 2 years, but I think it's wrong to close a rule or a question of this importance.

So I do, I ask my colleagues, oppose the rule and oppose the underlying legislation. That's exactly what we need to do, because we can do this better, and we don't have to divide one another.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. And I do so, not because I oppose embryonic stem cell research, but because, as an OB/GYN physician, I oppose federally funded embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life. And the truth of the matter is, I am not alone in this belief, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I'm joined by nearly half the American public. Let me say that again: Nearly half of the American public opposes using taxpayers' dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research when a human embryo is destroyed in the process.

Now, I know that the supporters of this bill claim an overwhelming majority of Americans wholeheartedly endorse their bill. However, when these same Americans are asked specifically whether or not they would like the Federal Government to fund research that destroys a human embryo, the survey results refute that claim. In fact, over 60 percent, Mr. Speaker, of Americans do not support their money going towards destructive embryonic stem cell research.

Mr. Speaker, it's not the job of Congress to force the American taxpayers to fund research that they morally oppose. Rather, this body is charged with the awesome responsibility of being good stewards of the taxpayer dollar by supporting research that upholds the values of our society. And I want to remind my colleagues and the American people, today that is the question we're debating. We are debating whether or not American taxpayers should be forced to pay for research that destroys human life. Contrary to what we're hearing today, we are not debating whether or not embryonic stem cell research is legal in this country; because not only is it completely legal, but it is also well funded in both the private and public sectors. In fact, Mr. Speaker, between State governments and private sector, nearly $4 billion has been committed to embryonic stem cell research over the next 10 years.

So, Mr. Speaker, as a society that has always valued and protected the

fragility of human life, we must reject this misguided attempt to force the American people into paying for something with which they fundamentally disagree. And I encourage my colleagues, oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, over the past 3 years, we have repeatedly stood on the floor of this House debating whether or not to expand the Federal Government's role in funding embryonic stem cell research. Today I implore my colleagues that, for once in this debate, let the facts speak louder than fiction. Let us all put aside political posturing and debate the impact of this legislation. Let us ensure that the American people hear the truth. We do not have to sacrifice human life to further stem cell research.

Once again, we find ourselves debating the same stem cell legislation without any input from the Members of this House. Essentially the Democratic majority and their leadership is saying to the American people: This issue has not changed since we debated it in January, since we debated it last summer; in fact, since we debated it back in August of 2001. But that assumption is fundamentally wrong. The reality is that this issue has changed. Science has moved past bureaucracy and, in fact, past politics, to which it owes no allegiance.

There have been multiple scientific breakthroughs which show that there are other ways to achieve medical miracles without the collateral damage mandated by S. 5. The American people deserve a full and a comprehensive debate on these very, very successful alternatives. That is the reason that I am offering this motion to commit, which would replace S. 5 with a bill that was originally introduced by the other gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Roscoe Bartlett, and myself, called the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Therapies Enhancement Act.

This act would authorize the use of Federal funds to research alternative and ethical ways to extract embryonic-like, or pluripotent, stem cells. That is what we should be debating on the floor of this esteemed body today, legislation that mitigates the gut-wrenching ethical questions of embryonic stem cell research that damages or, more likely, destroys human life.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the hope of embryonic stem cell research is not grounded solely in the fact that these cells are embryonic; rather, researchers are interested in embryonic stem cells because they are flexible, and they can specialize into any type of human tissue. Indeed, I doubt that the scientists care where these cells come from.

Pluripotent stem cells can be obtained in a variety of ethical and scientifically promising ways. They do ``not'' have to come from a living embryo which some call medical waste but others embrace as ``snowflake'' babies with priceless lives.

Mr. Speaker, this point cannot be illustrated any more clearly than in the ground-breaking research published in several scientific journals since the beginning of this year. In fact, just yesterday, Nature Journal published a study that shows research's ability to literally reprogram an adult cell taken from skin to achieve one of these pluripotent, or embryonic-like, stem cell states. This research offers the promise of generating embryonic stem cells without the collateral damage of harming human embryos.

Let me read to you a fascinating quote from this article: ``The race is now on to apply the surprisingly straightforward procedure to human cells. If researchers succeed, it will make it relatively easy to produce cells that seem indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells and that are genetically matched to individual patients.'' Mr. Speaker, that equates, my colleagues, to no rejection and no tumors. Hallelujah. Science has found a

way to support human life in terms of medical cures. The way we derive those cures is so important.

Earlier this year, researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard published a study that showed the capability to obtain pluripotent stem cells again from amniotic fluid, which have the necessary characteristics of being fast-growing and flexible, and can be harvested, get this, Mr. Speaker, as early as 9 weeks into a pregnancy with no damage.

These are just two examples of new cutting-edge research which has fundamentally changed this stem cell debate. We no longer need to engage in an issue that divides this Congress, and indeed our country, in half. We no longer need to contemplate a unilateral decision to spend taxpayer dollars on research methods that half of the public morally opposes.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of Energy and Commerce, who just spoke from the well, he said it exactly right. This is a political ploy, bringing this bill up under suspension, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, to give Members on the other side of the aisle the opportunity for cover on this bill, this Castle-DeGette legislation that's coming up tomorrow.

When King Solomon ordered that the baby be cut in half, Mr. Speaker, who knew that someone would actually take him up on the offer. And yet regrettably, this bill before us today, H.R. 2560, it aims to figuratively and literally cut the baby in half.

Supporters of this legislation claim that H.R. 2650 bans human cloning. This claim could not be further from the truth. If we really want to ban human cloning, then the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), in a bipartisan way, they have the right bill, and this was reintroduced by Representative Weldon last night. I'm a proud cosponsor of that. That bans human cloning for any purpose, reproductive or research.

I'm not impugning the motive of Representative DeGette, maybe it's inadvertent, and maybe hopefully she understands through this discussion today about the bill that, inadvertently, this promotes cloning for research purposes.

We believe, those of us who are part of the pro-life caucus, strongly believe that when you clone a human Dolly, that is a human being, and then you slice it and dice it to get stem cells and then it's required that you destroy it because it becomes a crime if it's implanted in a woman to become a child. Then we say that you are indeed creating life and destroying life, not maybe for the purpose of reproduction but for the purpose of research, and that is wrong.

And that is why we need to vote down this bill today, and I strongly oppose it.

I thank my friend and former chairman, Mr. Dreier, for yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to this rule to H.R. 2316. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act I am not opposed to. It's the rule that I am opposed to. When you have 48 amendments and five of them are made in order, this is not open government. This is not open process.

I want to particularly, to my colleagues, mention the fact that I had one of those 43 amendments which were not made in order. And I think if we really wanted meaningful reform in an open government, that this amendment clearly would have been made in order, we would have had an opportunity on the floor of this House to debate it.

No, it's not in the Senate version. If it doesn't get in the House version, then, clearly, it's not going to come out of conference.

What this amendment basically says is that Members, either Republicans or Democrats, House or Senate, in a leadership position that formed these things known as leadership PACs, cannot convert that money at any time, but especially when they leave this place, to their personal use.

Now we did that, or a former Congress, I think, back in the early 1990s, said Members cannot retire from this body and go home with seven figures worth of money in their campaign accounts. For those who are not paying attention, seven figures is over $1 million.

A lot of Members, back then in the early 1990s, decided since they were not going to be able to do that after a date certain, they retired so they could go home and spend that money and buy a new vacation home or fancy automobile or whatever.

Since then, what's happened is Members have formed these leadership PACs. It's not just leadership Members; in fact, any Member can form a leadership PAC. So I am not saying that the money that they use out of those PACs is improperly or dishonestly spent, but the temptation is there.

I want to give you an example of just one. I have 10 listed in my official remarks. I am not here to embarrass anybody. But there was one PAC called Searchlight PAC that, in 2006, raised $2 million. Do you know how much of that money was spent on helping another Member run for a Federal office in that particular PAC's party? $300,000. That means $1.7 million of that PAC's money was spent in some personal way. I don't know if it was dishonest, but we have to stop this sort of thing.

Really, I am shocked that this amendment was not made in order. Listen to this letter that was sent to Speaker Hastert last year when my former Chairman Dreier worked on lobbying ethics reform. Here is the letter. ``The House of Representatives is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, and any debate in open government must not restrict the discussion of serious proposals . . . I am calling on you to use your authority as Speaker to direct the Rules Committee to report an unrestricted rule on lobby reform.'' Signed then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Ms. Pelosi obviously has changed her mind this time around. This rule says loud and clear that this House no longer is a marketplace for ideas; there is no room in this House for full and unrestricted debate on open government. That's why I am standing in opposition, not to the bill, but to the rule. We could have made this bill so much better if we had allowed these amendments, such as mine, to be made in order.

I ask my colleagues, as former Chairman Dreier said, to oppose this rule.

I thank my friend and classmate from Texas, Representative Neugebauer, and, of course, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here on the floor this evening with our colleagues and my classmate, Representative Pearce of New Mexico and Judge John Carter from Texas. And you'll hear soon from another classmate of ours from Iowa, Representative Steve King, and, of course, a new Member, but a very experienced one, Tim Walberg from Michigan.

It's an honor to be with them, Mr. Speaker, tonight, because this is a time really of victory for our men and women who are the patriots fighting this war in the Middle East. It's not a time for bragging, and we're not here to stick our finger in the eye of the Democrats and say, you know, you were wrong, you were wrong all along, and finally, after 107 days, you have admitted you were wrong, and we have won this argument.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, it's been a tremendous loss for the country to go 107 days, or whatever it is, from the time the President asked for the money that the Department of Defense has requested to continue to conduct this war for the rest of this fiscal year, 2007, the $100 billion with no strings attached, Mr. Speaker.

The Commander in Chief and the combatant commanders in the field and General Petraeus brought us a new way forward. It's what the American people wanted. It's what the Congress wanted. And our combatant commanders responded to that. And we put in place the highest-ranking four-star general on the ground in Iraq, General David Petraeus, who wrote the manual 6 months before on counterterrorism and knew and knows.

And it wasn't just his plan, but it was a plan that was worked out in combination with the Iraqi Government, with Prime Minister Maliki, and it called for essentially all of the things that the Iraq Study Group asked for. That report, Mr. Speaker, was a bipartisan report chaired by two very distinguished political public servants, the Honorable Jim Baker, Republican, the Honorable Lee Hamilton, a long-term member from Indiana, a Democrat, and this is exactly what the President tried to do. And yet the Democratic new majority wanted to insist on these benchmarks that weren't really performance benchmarks but they included a timetable, a timeline, for giving up no matter what the circumstances on the ground were. And the worst and most egregious of those, my colleagues, was to say that in August of 2008, just a little more than a year from now, that no matter what was happening in Iraq, even if it got like when Andrew Jackson had the British running down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, as the song goes, even if we were in that situation, winning this battle, in August of 2008, this Democratic majority wanted to blow the whistle and bring the troops home.

And I am telling you at this particular time, as we approach the Memorial Day weekend, what kind of message does that send to those who have given the last full measure of devotion in this war, and in any war, while the Democratic majority tries to get the last full ounce of political blood on the floor of this House? It is shameful, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues.

Every one of us have gone to some funerals in our districts. And I stand here tonight and I think about the Saylor family, Paul, their son, 22 years old from Breman, Georgia. I think about young Justine Johnson, another 22-year-old from Armuchee, Georgia, up in Floyd County. I think about the former president of my student body at my alma mater, the Georgia Institute of Technology, who 2 years after serving as student body president at that great institution, that first lieutenant gave his life in Iraq, shot down by a sniper while leading his troops. I think about Command Master Sergeant Eric Cooke, who served 30 years in the military, multiple deployments at the tip of the spear, and on Christmas Eve, 2003, my first trip to Iraq, one day after I met him and gave him some books and school supplies for the Iraqi children; he promised to deliver them, but, unfortunately, he took that right seat in a Humvee so that one of his troops

could stay home and call his wife and his family and talk to his loved ones on Christmas Eve. And Command Master Sergeant Eric Cooke gave his life one evening when that Humvee went over an improvised explosive device.

In the history of this country, we are about to honor those who have given their lives on Memorial Day, the last Monday in May. And at that time I think about and I want my colleagues to think back to World War I when Dr. McCrae wrote that poem ``In Flanders Fields.'' I am not going to try to quote the poem, although it is a very short poem, but the last stanza basically says don't forget it us. Just don't forget us. We fought the battle. Whatever the cause, you may not agree with it, but don't forget us.

And I think that is why we felt so strong. I commend this President for vetoing bad bills that would forget the troops and would let them die in vain.

So it is an honor to be here tonight to say thank you maybe to the Democratic majority for finally coming to your senses and letting the combatant commanders and the Commander in Chief fight the war. Certainly we could talk about policy and we can talk about funding but not with strings attached. Let's give victory a chance. And I think we have an absolute chance, as my colleagues pointed out, and some of the progress is being made. The news media, of course, doesn't report good news. Good news is an oxymoron, isn't it? So they don't talk about that. But thank you, colleagues, for letting me come tonight and talk about this.

I know if the troops are watching over in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think they are very proud that the Congress is supporting them and we are not going to pull the rug out from under them.

With that, I want to yield back to my colleague from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer. I know there are a couple of other speakers and I thank the gentleman for giving me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to support H.R. 2272, the 21st Century Competitiveness Act, and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. I want to thank my chairman on the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, Mr. David Wu of Oregon.

This legislation we are voting on today is a combination of bills which the House has already overwhelmingly passed, reauthorization bills for both the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as well as bills to promote science, technology, engineering and math, what we refer to as STEM education in our country.

Last year, with the American Competitiveness Initiative, President Bush laid out a vision to maintain America's edge in the global marketplace. These goals were spurred by a report issued by the National Academies, and it was entitled, as the gentleman from Florida said, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''

This report looked at ways in which the Federal Government could enhance our country's science and technology enterprise so that we can continue to compete and prosper globally.

The Commission made a variety of recommendations. Some of them include reforming K-12 education, as well as expanding and strengthening the basic research and science and engineering conducted in America. This comprehensive innovation bill addresses these concerns, and it helps to fulfill this vision. That's why I am proud, proud, to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2272.

One provision in this legislation reauthorizes the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, an agency in the Department of Commerce, as one of the three agencies

highlighted by the President's American Competitiveness Initiative, and it falls under the jurisdiction of the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee of which, as I said at the outset, I am a proud member.

The NIST employees play a critical role in NIST research, which enables cutting-edge technologies to make the leap from a basic research situation into successful commercial products. This is accomplished at NIST by conducting research that supports United States technology infrastructure by developing the tools to measure, to evaluate, and standardize processes and products in almost all industrial sectors, bullet-proof vests all the way to nanotechnology.

From rewarding younger students for continuing their work in the fields of science and engineering, to increasing the amount of grants available to teachers and students who pursue continuing education in the STEM, science, technology, engineering, math fields, to providing financial aid to students who make a commitment that after college they will teach, working to ensure that we have a strong United States manufacturing base, H.R. 2272 takes many important and critical first steps toward keeping America competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I again want to underline my wholehearted support for the 21st Century Competitiveness Act, and I urge all my colleagues, as I know they will, to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the city of Marietta, Georgia on being named one of the Nation's top best communities. The National Civic League has designated Marietta as an All-American city for its exemplary and innovative work to strengthen the community through citizen participation.

Marietta was recognized for several programs that cut to the heart of the city's commitment to improving the lives of its residents. The Marietta Reads program helps children develop critical literary skills. The M-STAR program helps reduce crime. And the Marietta Revitalization Program helps to create affordable housing and foster safe communities.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous and well-deserved honor, as the citizens of Marietta have put their hearts and souls into strengthening our community. In fact, Marietta is only the fourth Georgia city to ever achieve this distinction in its 57-year history.

We all know that when our friends and neighbors come together for the common good, something special happens in our cities. Schools improve, the economy is bolstered, and our streets are safer. I am incredibly proud that Marietta is leading the way on these important initiatives. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the city of Marietta, its Mayor, Bill Dunaway, its members of Council, and especially my councilman, Van Pearlberg.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding.

I rise today in support of H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

I would like to say a special thanks to Chairman Skelton, my good friend, and also to Ranking Member Hunter, as well as Subcommittee Chairman Abercrombie and Ranking Member Saxton, for their tireless efforts in support of our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and marines who are bravely defending us both at home and abroad.

Madam Chairman, while not a perfect bill, this legislation covers a wide scope of issues that are vitally important to our armed services, both active and reserve components, and clearly meets the immediate needs of the warfighter.

From a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise to an additional $4.1 billion for the MRAP, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, this legislation addresses the most pressing needs of our troops during a very, very trying time for this country. I am further pleased that the bill provides for an increase of 13,000 Army and 9,000 Marine Corps active-duty personnel, as well as $1 billion for National Guard equipment.

While I applaud the work of the committee in addressing pressing readiness issues, I am very concerned, Madam Chairman, about the deep cuts to missile defense and, of course, the Army Future Combat Systems. A viable missile defense system is critical to deterring and countering emerging threats to our national security, especially as Iran and North Korea develop their nuclear capabilities. I look forward to working with Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter and the rest of the committee as this bill moves forward to address these program needs.

I am pleased, however, that the Armed Services Committee voted unanimously on a bipartisan basis to support another program critical to our national security. Madam Chairman, that is section 1243 of this bill. It affirms that WHINSEC, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, is effectively accomplishing its mission and expresses that because of this success, the Department of Defense should continue utilizing this program to promote security cooperation with Latin American countries.

Those who have been taking the time to visit WHINSEC at Fort Benning in Columbus understand the critical importance of this program. By virtue of WHINSEC, the United States is able to engage the military and the security forces of Central and South American countries in a forum where they will be able to learn our values regarding democracy and human rights, especially now human rights, while also being trained in counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism tactics.

It is so important to remember that this may be the only medium we ever have to engage the future military and political leaders of these Latin American countries, who are America's closest neighbors; and they can serve as

our closest allies. If we were not to engage with these nations, we would be abandoning our most effective means of developing relationships with the security forces of Central and South America. The void created would be filled by countries with different values than our own regarding democracy and human rights, countries, Madam Chairman, such as Venezuela and China, whose influence in the region is growing. And, therefore, I am glad that the Armed Services Committee stands behind WHINSEC.

Madam Chairman, there is much to be proud of in this bill, and I again commend Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their efforts to keep this bill focused on the needs of the warfighter, a fact I hope is not lost as we progress through the amendment process.

I urge all my colleagues to remember the importance of a strong national defense and to prioritize that over partisan issues which divide us.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I didn't know he was going to yield so quickly. I am still out of breath from running over here.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to come and lend my support to my good friend, Congressman David Scott, my colleague from Georgia, and the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act.

Congressman Scott and I both served in the Georgia senate, he for a while longer than I did, and with more power in the leadership there, but we had passed similar legislation in Georgia, this commonsense provision, to help give some relief to these young, brilliant attorneys who are willing to go into work to serve either as a prosecutor or a public defender.

The reason I feel so impassioned by it, my daughter, Phyllis Collins, has been practicing in the Cobb County judicial system now for about 3 years. She came out of law school at Michigan State after graduating from undergraduate school with a microbiology degree from Georgia Tech. I thought she would become a doctor, but she became a darn good lawyer instead.

She came out of that school with about $100,000 in debt, just as this bill indicates in the language we have read. That's just a typical situation that my daughter, Phyllis, is in. She took that job for about $60,000 a year, I believe. She served a year and a half as a prosecutor. Now she is a public defender.

It's people like Phyllis Collins that we need to encourage to do this kind of important work on behalf of people, the public defenders, the prosecutors. They are bringing justice to people that otherwise could not afford justice.

I think that I want to say once again to Congressman Scott and all the others on our side of the aisle as well, my good friend from Virginia, Randy Forbes, who have brought this bill forward, I thank you for the time. I support it tremendously, and I congratulate you for doing this.

Mr. Speaker, for months Democratic leaders have tried to dictate military strategy by press release with little regard for the service men and women putting their lives on the line every day.

Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not realize that the privileges of the majority come with an actual responsibility to govern. Let me say to them, the time for tantrums is over. At long last, we are presented with an opportunity to vote yes or no on abandoning our mission in Iraq. But let's not mistake this newfound direction for some kind of profile in courage.

After months of factual disarray, the Democratic Party has not suddenly found its spine; it has simply realized that the liberal agents who drive this majority, MoveOn.org, the labor unions, they have run out of patience. And it is them that demand a vote on abandoning our mission and abandoning it ASAP. Sadly, the Democrats have little concern for the demands of our military or for its waning patience for the funding that they so desperately need.

More than 3 months, Mr. Speaker, have passed since the President requested emergency funding for our troops. Over the past 94 days, the Democrats have succeeded only in putting politics over policy and trying to substitute their judgment for that of the combatant commanders. For the past 94 days, they have chosen to beat their chest at press conferences, and yes, on this floor, rather than finding ways to actually get our troops the funding that they need to achieve victory.

But, astoundingly, over the past 94 days, Democrats have never once grasped the consequences of resigning ourselves to defeat in Iraq. The void created by our departure would be filled by religious extremists and terrorists. Iran's path to develop nuclear weapons would be cleared. Violence in Iraq would grow exponentially. Shiite death squads and al Qaeda terrorists would further destabilize the democratically elected government. Another rogue regime could take root, leading to genocide. The terrorists, freshly emboldened by our surrender, would then be able to export terrorism around the world.

Today, each of us has a critical decision to make: Do we stand by the side of victory or on the side of defeat? Do we stand with our troops or with those who would want to abandon them? Do we rise to the challenge of fostering freedom, or do we capitulate to the political pressure of special interests? The choice, Mr. Speaker, is ours. For the sake of our soldiers and our Nation. I implore my colleagues to choose wisely.

Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago the Supreme Court upheld the ban on the abomination of partial-birth abortion.

I come this morning to say thank you to one of our former Members, the Honorable Chairman Henry Hyde, who served in this body for almost 30 years. Chairman Hyde stood up for the sanctity of life at every step of the way, every day that he served in this great body, and I hope he is enjoying his retirement in the great State of Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, Henry once said, ``This is not a debate about religious doctrine or even about public policy options. It is a debate about our understanding of human dignity, what it means to be a member of the human family even though tiny, powerless, and unwanted.''

And I hope my colleagues will all reflect on these words.

Chairman Hyde, we thank you from the bottom of our heart. God bless you for your service to this great body.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud the Texas State legislature for passing House Bill 1098, which prevents mandatory human-papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for middle school girls in the State of Texas until at least 2011.

This legislation was a necessary response to the ill-advised executive order signed by Governor Perry in February of this year, which requires every girl in the state of Texas to receive a vaccine against HPV. I stand tonight to encourage the Governor of Texas to quickly sign H.B. 1098 into law and return important healthcare choices to parents and physicians--not the state or Federal government.

Madam Speaker, HPV is a sexually transmitted disease of which two strains, types 16 and 18, are associated with about 70 percent of cervical cancers. In June of 2006, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first vaccine that protects against 4 types of HPV. As an OB/GYN physician, I applaud this achievement in modern medicine. However, I am greatly concerned with the trend in many states to introduce legislation or sign executive orders mandating young girls-- 6th graders--receive the HPV vaccine in order to attend school.

States have historically established and enforced their own vaccine and immunization practices that dictate their school admittance policies.

Requiring school-aged children to receive certain vaccines in order to attend school started as a public health concern so as to avoid widespread outbreaks of communicable diseases. However, Madam Speaker, since HPV can only be spread through sexual contact, mandating this vaccine is unprecedented, and I believe it is an egregious intrusion by government into what should be a parent- physician-patient decision.

Accordingly, I have introduced legislation, the Parental Right to Decide Protection Act, which would prohibit federal funds from being used to implement any type of mandatory HPV vaccine program. We need to stand up against this government interference into the lives of our children, which side-steps parental rights and responsibilities.

This is why I am so encouraged by the action of the Texas State legislature to stand up for the rights of our children, protect the role of parents and preserve the physician-patient relationship.

Madam Speaker, our government should not insert itself into this conversation--and I want to join the many medical groups, patient groups and parental rights groups--to call on the Governor of Texas to sign this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let me just thank my former colleague on the Committee on Rules, Mr. Pete Sessions, the gentleman from Texas. I realize as we get busy running from pillar to post around here, that he was in the process of wrapping up, and it is awfully kind of him to go kind of out of regular order and give me the opportunity, knowing how committed I am to this program, to take a few minutes. I appreciate so much that opportunity.

I do rise to support the underlying rule and the bill, H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. I want to take the opportunity to thank my chairman on the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, David Wu from the great State of Oregon, for incorporating into this bill the many suggestions and additions from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as the administration. The final legislation is a better product because of that, and, David Wu, I thank you so much.

Last year, with his American Competitiveness Initiative, President Bush provided a vision to maintain America's position in the global marketplace by actually doubling the investment in physical science research over the next 10 years. H.R. 1868 helps fulfill that mission.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST we know it as. It is an agency in the Department of Commerce and one of the three agencies highlighted by the President's American Competitiveness Initiative.

NIST has an annual operating budget of about $843 million. It operates in two locations. The headquarters, of course, are in Gaithersburg, Maryland, I have had a great visit there with Dr. Jeffrey, the Director. There is also the facility at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

NIST employs 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians and administrative. These employees all play a critical role in this research, which enables cutting-edge technologies to make the leap from basic research into successful commercial products. NIST labs accomplish this goal by conducting research that supports United States technology infrastructure by developing tools to measure, evaluate and standardize processes and products in almost all industrial sectors.

For example, NIST labs develops performance standards for bulletproof vests, chemical and biological protection equipment guides for first responders, measurement standards vital to sustaining cutting-edge industries like nanotechnology, we are doing some great work at my alma mater, the Georgia Institute of Technology, on nanotechnology, and, of course, next generation solar cells.

The Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act codifies

the American Competitiveness Initiative by authorizing 3 years of the proposed 10-year doubling for NIST laboratories and construction budget. That indeed is exactly what the administration asked us to do. That is exactly what Chairman Wu has done and the Science Committee has done.

H.R. 1868 also strengthens oversight of NIST programs by requiring the director to submit to Congress annual programmatic planning documents and requiring NIST's Technical Advisory Board to comment on those plans. This will ensure that the budget of NIST is spent on activities that meet the needs of American industry and that Congress is kept abreast of how NIST plans to use its increased funding.

Manufacturing is so fundamental, Mr. Speaker, to our Nation's economic vitality. Manufacturing jobs continue to pay more than the average U.S. salaries and they provide better benefits.

Mr. Speaker, a strong manufacturing base is so critical to U.S. economic competitiveness. H.R. 1868 supports small and medium-sized manufacturers by reauthorizing the highly successful Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I know every Member is enthusiastic about Manufacturing Extension Partnerships. We refer to them as MEPs. They are wonderful. They are great programs. They help businesses improve manufacturing processes, reduce waste, they train workers to use new equipment.

The MEP program receives one-third of its funding from the Federal Government, one-third from the States, and, yes, one-third from fees charged to the participating small businesses, these potential small business manufacturers. This MEP program has over 350 offices located in all 50 States and Puerto Rico. In my great State of Georgia, and again, I mention my alma mater, Georgia Tech, plays a critical role in successfully coordinating the efforts across the State for these MEP programs.

H.R. 1868 improves the MEP program by incorporating changes that have passed the House in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. These changes include the codification of an MEP advisory board, the establishment of grant programs to research and identify innovative manufacturing technologies and the formation of research fellowships.

I know my colleagues and I can all agree that small and medium-sized manufacturers are the workhorses of our economy. Their future depends on our ability to foster an innovative environment which will enable them to continue developing and adopting advanced technologies that allow them to remain competitive in the ever-increasing global marketplace.

Our country's current system of collaboration with university and national lab-based basic research is the best in the world. However, many experts agree that in the phase between science-based ``inventions'' and commercially viable ``innovation,'' inefficiencies exist in our capital markets that contribute to the funding gap for early stage technology development.

Currently, the Advanced Technology Program at NIST provides cost- shared funding to bridge the technology development gap for research with potential to deliver widespread economic benefits that would likely not be developed because private sector capital is unavailable.

H.R. 1868 repeals the Advanced Technology Program, ATP, and establishes the Technology Innovation Program, TIP, which will award cost-shared grants to small and medium-sized businesses and joint ventures including universities to pursue high-risk technologies with potential significant broad benefits to the Nation.

The new Technology Innovation Program incorporates recommendations made by the Bush administration to improve and update the former ATP program to make it more effective in promoting technology transfer that will benefit our entire Nation.

Mr. Speaker, past ATP funding advanced technologies for the next- generation auto equipment and techniques including: robotic welding, ceramic coatings, and reinforced plastics as strong as steel. One project dramatically improved the fit of a car body's 300 stamped parts. This advancement may save consumers and automakers up to $650 million in annual maintenance costs.

Mr. Speaker, I again want to underline my whole-hearted support for the underlying legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that what we are doing here today in regard to the NIST program is so important to our economy. We worry about jobs. We worry on both sides of the aisle. We talk about that. Every month we look at the number of jobs that were created. It is a barometer that is watched so closely by the Members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, and by the people back home.

This is really what this is all about, these kinds of programs. We can fight about a lot of things, but we shouldn't fight about funding the National Science Foundation and the NIST program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and anything like that, like last week when we passed those two bills to improve math and science education in this country.

We have to compete globally. Yes, we are in a shooting war in the Middle East and we want to give our soldiers an opportunity to win, but we need to give ourselves an opportunity to win this economic battle of the global economy, and that is what it is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I want to again underline my whole-hearted support for the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues, as I know they will, to support it.