Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of C.W. Matthews, a long-term businessman in Cobb County, Georgia. Mr. Matthews passed away on Sunday at the age of 84, and with his passing, our Nation lost of one of its most inspired industrialists

In the 1940s, a 23-year-old Matthews established the C.W. Matthews Contracting Company, which today is the largest highway contractor in the southeastern United States. C.W. was a natural businessman, making friends with ease, growing his company the old-fashioned way, through hard work.

Over the past 60 years, the company has employed thousands of workers, built many of the roads that help Cobb County thrive, and even worked on the expansion at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson airport. In fact, Mr. Matthews, with only an eighth-grade education, created one of the most successful family-run businesses in the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell Mr. Matthews' wife, Myrtle, of 66 years, his two sons, two grandsons, and seven great-grandchildren, the entire Cobb County community shares in your loss. We will always remember C.W. as a man of passion, drive and ingenuity.

I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the legacy of C.W. Matthews.

Madam Speaker, indeed it is an anniversary. It's about the 80th-day anniversary since the President asked for funding for our troops. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the theatrics the Democratic majority is trying to pass off as some kind of policy.

Today, Speaker Pelosi will stage an elaborate and politically timed signing ceremony for the Iraq troop withdrawal bill Congress passed 5 days ago. As President Bush has already vowed to veto this irresponsible legislation, Speaker Pelosi's theatrics are simply slowing down the process of getting much needed funding and money to our troops.

Let me remind the American people that our warfighters have been waiting nearly 3 months for Congress to pass the President's requested supplemental funding for the war. The Democratic leader might think a few days here don't mean much, don't matter much. Every day they stall to appease left-wing activists is another day our military must wait for the funding it needs to win this war.

Madam Speaker, I admonish Speaker Pelosi to quit playing politics with our

national security. Let Congress vote on a clean funding bill for our troops. The Democratic leaders may be content to lose the war, but the troops are in harm's way, and they certainly will not lose this war.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, firmly and resolutely opposed to both this rule and the underlying conference report.

I regret to say that the Democratic leaders have once again demonstrated that it is either their way or the highway, except this time it is our fighting men and women who are left stranded in the middle of the road.

Mr. Speaker, I am truly saddened and, in truth, even angered by the majority's insistence on putting this war, our generals, and our war fighters on auto pilot with a forced retreat and an inflexible timetable.

The consequences of this decision, should it become law, will echo long beyond this date, this year, this decade. Defeat should not be an option, and yet it seems that this majority believes it is the only option.

We are at a critical juncture in history when the defenders of liberty and freedom have to stand firm against tyrants and terrorists.

And I will remind the gentleman from Virginia that just spoke, indeed, the famous quote says, ``There are times in our history when the tree of liberty must be nourished by the blood of patriots.''

Sure, without question, this war has been hard fought every step of the way, and it will continue to be. But few things worthwhile in life are ever easy.

Regrettably, this majority was bought and paid for by MoveOn.org and liberal extremists, and now they have come to collect, unfortunately, at the expense of our military and our security, today, tomorrow, and for decades to come.

When the Speaker of the House pushes to rewrite our foreign policy and yet refuses to meet with General Petraeus, our commander on the ground in Iraq, it becomes abundantly clear this majority would rather push left-wing politics over sound policy.

This political theater would be funny if its consequences weren't a matter of life and death, of victory and defeat. Every day that we delay a legitimate war-funding bill, the resources of our military and our soldiers' quality of life are diminished. In fact, this delay has forced the Pentagon to move $800 million from the Air Force's personnel accounts, money to pay our servicemembers, to make up for the gaps in the war funding.

I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, oppose this rule, oppose this conference report. Let us end this political game and truly give victory a chance.

We can do better, Mr. Speaker. We have an obligation to do better for the sake of the men and women who put their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect ours.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Fairbanks Company in Rome, Georgia, which is celebrating their 120th year of manufacturing this year. In fact, the Fairbanks Company is the oldest surviving manufacturer in Floyd County, dating back to the plant's establishment in 1987.

Well, much has changed over the past century. The company has seen its original product line of wagon and railroad track scales give way to the current line of hand-trucks, wheels, dollies and platform trucks. In fact, the company was responsible for all of the trucks that serviced the British steamship Queen Mary and S.S. United States.

But one thing has not changed over the past 120 years, Mr. Speaker, and that is the company's commitment to quality and community. Indeed, the Fairbanks Company is a critical industry in the Rome community, and the company's leaders and workers take exceptional pride in their product and their work.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating Fairbanks Company on 120 years of industry in the Floyd County community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of our troops who are still waiting for critical funding needed to fight the war on terror. I want to make sure the American people understand what is happening with legislation that provides money for our soldiers.

Instead of passing a clean bill the President could sign into law, the Democrats chose to pass a political statement that ties troop funding to arbitrary withdrawal deadlines, and it's loaded with earmarks. The Democrats have even dragged their feet on their own legislation, taking a 2-week recess without funding our troops and spending another week in Washington bickering over a bill that they know that the President will veto.

Why are we playing politics with money for our soldiers? Our troops can't win this war with political rhetoric. They need money, they need supplies, and they have been waiting over

70 days since the President made the request. I call on this House to pass a clean bill, get it to the President's desk, so we can give our war fighters the tools that they need to achieve victory.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the chairman's amendment. I know on this bill, H.R. 362, this is a perfect example of everything being said but not every one of us having an opportunity to say it. I rise in support of the amendment of Chairman Gordon and also the bill.

I can't improve on the words of the distinguished Speaker that we heard from just a few minutes ago, but I do want to applaud and support this H.R. 362, 10,000 Teachers, 10,000 Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act, and certainly applaud Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall and the work that they have done. I am proud to be a member of the Science and Technology Committee and to see this come to the floor today.

The National Academy released a report, Mr. Chairman, entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' that looked at the ways in which the Federal Government could enhance our country's science and technology enterprise so that we can continue to compete and prosper in the global marketplace. The commission arrived at one outstanding and alarming conclusion: American students are falling behind in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and math, sometimes referred to as

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I do rise today in strong support of

H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act.

This legislation, just like H.R. 362 which we just passed, is a fantastic opportunity for bipartisanship to support math and science education in this country. Taken in combination with that bill, 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds, we lay a crucial foundation in maintaining America's competitiveness worldwide.

The National Academies released a report entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' It looked at ways in which the Federal Government could enhance our country's science and technology enterprise so we can continue to compete and prosper in this global marketplace. In addition to its recommendations with respect to K-12 education, the commission came to the conclusion that there is a general lack of research in science and engineering in America.

Our country must face the reality that China and India are making significant strides and pouring major resources into science and engineering. Therefore, in order to stay competitive, we need to not only encourage young students to get excited by the possibilities that exist with technology advances, but we also need to support young scientist research. Since younger scientists are more likely to do innovative and transformative work, it is in our country's best interest to ensure that these young scientists indeed have the support that they need.

Mr. Chairman, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Act offers rewards for younger students in order to encourage them to continue their work in the fields of science and engineering.

This legislation also strengthens Federal support for science and engineering researchers at the early stages of their career by expanding the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program at NSF, establishing a Presidential Innovation Award, and authorizing NSF to authorize research on innovation.

Again, I want to emphasize that I truly believe in order for our great Nation to remain competitive in the ever-advancing global marketplace, we need to sustain and strengthen our commitment to long- term basic research. This is research that has the potential to be transformational in maintaining the flow of new ideas that fuel our economy, provide security and enhance the quality of life for all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe this legislation is a great first step to address this impending crisis, both in America's workforce and our country's research institutions, and I am proud to support the bill, and I ask all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, and hopefully I will not run out of time, but I did want to at this point say that as much as I am for this bill, I have to oppose one of the amendments that is going to be offered by the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand, the Gillibrand amendment. It is duplicative. We already do that under the Department of Education in regard to providing scholarships, merit scholarships for advanced students in our high schools. We already do that through the Department of Education, and it is a very well-funded program.

But more importantly, Mr. Chairman, the reason I am opposed to the amendment, in a way it contradicts what we just did in H.R. 362, where we said we will give these grants to these students to encourage them to study and pursue math and science and engineering types of advanced degrees in college with a payback, a two-for-one payback if they go into the teaching profession in a community where we have that great need for outstanding math and science teachers.

With that, Mr. Chairman, again, I support the bill. I am opposed to the Gillibrand amendment for the reasons outlined.

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand my former colleagues on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor) being in favor of this rule and this underlying bill.

But I rise, Mr. Speaker, in strong opposition to the underlying legislation, H.R. 1361, the RECOVER Act. This legislation is bad fiscal policy. It increases the cost to America's taxpayers of providing disaster assistance, while increasing the probability that the Federal Government will lose money to default losses.

It was Huey Long, the long-time Governor and Senator from Louisiana, the gulf coast, the Kingfish, as he was known, who said, ``I can frighten or buy 99 out of every 100 men.''

Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that my Democratic colleagues are trying to buy votes with this bill. But I do know that we need to closely examine the money our government spends to ensure that it is spent responsibly.

We have worked hard to fund the redevelopment of the gulf coast, committing more than $110 billion of Federal resources. That includes $4.7 billion to FEMA to remove debris and repair and rebuild public infrastructure and buildings; $17 billion from HUD for Community Development Block Grants, the largest housing recovery program in United States history; $6 billion for the Corps of Engineers to rebuild and restore levees so that we can rebuild below sea level; $16.1 billion paid out in national flood insurance claims, $1 billion for Health and Human Services to cover all of Louisiana's health care costs. And the list, Mr. Speaker, goes on and on.

There are right ways and wrong ways to fund redevelopment. This Congress has delivered $14 billion in incentives to spur private business investment and economic development to create jobs, another $600 million in Gulf Opportunity Zone tax credits to the region, with an additional $400 million expected to be awarded this fall to encourage more business investment. But today we are debating a bill which would harm small business across the Nation by giving away money that will never, and I repeat, that will never get repaid.

Mr. Speaker, provisions in title II of this bill would allow gulf businesses whose application for a disaster loan has been denied, to then receive $100,000 in grant money. And if a business has already received a loan, this bill will make sure that same business can also get a grant, and in the process, they will make certain that the grant money is not used to repay the loan.

So, yes, Mr. Speaker, you heard right. If the SBA decides your business is not viable enough for a loan, Congress is going to come in and just give you the money. What is more, now you can get paid twice for the same disaster.

Mr. Speaker, the sad fact is, this bill will hurt small businesses across the country. When the SBA makes a loan and that loan is repaid, the SBA loans that money to another business, and the cycle repeats itself. But by removing the repayment part of this cycle and requiring the SBA to send a $100,000 grant to those businesses who do not qualify for a disaster loan in the first place, we are diluting the resources of the SBA and hindering its ability to extend loans to businesses in other parts of the country, businesses fully capable of repaying them.

Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues are ignoring any semblance of restraint by treating our Treasury as a bottomless pit. In raising the risk of unrecoverable default losses, by giving away free money, it would certainly seem they are doing their level best to prove Huey Long's words to be true.

I urge my colleagues, vote against the rule and vote against the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for putting together this special order hour this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of this body now for 4\1/2\ years, this being my third term. And as I stand here tonight in front of my colleagues, I want to say emphatically that this is my finest hour as a Member of this great body, this United States House of Representatives that I have been a part of with 434 of my colleagues.

We have disappointments. We have good days, we have bad days. But this is a good day, and this is a good day. And this is a day that the Lord has made. And that is why it is a good day.

I sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that God's hand is in everything we do, every deliberation, every bill, everything that seems so important to us, every victory, every defeat. Indeed, I even think maybe God's hand was in the Republican majority, my party, losing that opportunity possibly as a wake-up call. But I want to thank God this evening for Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.

It has taken a long time, Mr. Speaker. Back in 1992, when this abhorrent procedure was first described, and then finally I think it was in early 1995 maybe when the Member of this body from Florida, Representative Kennedy, first introduced this bill to ban this procedure. And that bill to ban this abortion procedure, not to ban abortion, but to ban this type of abortion, which really is not an abortion; it is literally infanticide. It is killing of an infant. And it passed this body, and it passed this other body, only to be vetoed twice by the then President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, today I thank God for Representative Steve Chabot from Ohio, who brought this bill once again to this body in 2003, my first year, my freshman year. And I was so proud to vote for Representative Chabot's bill. And I thank God for former Senator Rick Santorum from the great State of Pennsylvania. Wherever he is tonight, I want to say, Rick, you lost your race, but you didn't lose the battle. And we thank God for your efforts then, because it has come to fruition now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to maybe make sure that my colleagues remember as they listen to my remarks tonight that I spent 26 years practicing obstetrics and gynecology. And in that great specialty, which I am so proud to be a part of that group, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, I had an opportunity to deliver 5,200 babies by my estimate over a 26-year period of time. They weren't all perfect. Some were born with birth defects. Some had spina bifida. And I have great friends in my hometown of Marietta, Georgia, in Cobb County, great, great parents like Brad and Kim Barfield, who have a beautiful little girl today who is suffering from spina bifida. They knew at 20 weeks that their little girl had that condition, but they didn't elect to terminate that pregnancy by a partial-birth abortion. And many others know ahead of time that they are going to have a child with Down's Syndrome, but they know that that is a gift from God that makes their lives better and the lives of their other children, the siblings. And I thank God for them.

Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to understand how this procedure of partial-birth abortion came about, because I remember. I remember when I was a resident in this specialty at the Medical College of Georgia back in 1974, 1975, shortly after Roe v. Wade was passed within a year.

There was a physician at a major medical center in the northeast, I do not remember the hospital, I do not remember the doctor's name, but it was at a teaching center. Back then, if a woman did not have an abortion at 12 to 14 weeks of pregnancy, the first trimester, and in fact, 90 percent of the million annual abortions that are performed in this country are done in the first trimester by a fairly simple procedure called a D&C, but if the pregnancy went beyond and it got to the second trimester and approaching the third trimester, and we are talking now about a 22, 24-week pregnancy when a baby weighs two-and-a- half pounds, the way the abortion procedure was done then back in 1975, and this was perfectly legal under Roe v. Wade, all it required is a licensed physician performed the procedure in a licensed medical facility with the consent of two other physicians.

This is the way the procedure was done. A strong salt, we say saline in the medical parlance, but a salt solution was injected into the mother's womb through the abdomen, and that salt solution, most of the time, killed the baby, killed this baby at 24, 26 weeks, maybe even 3 pounds, certainly capable of not only a live birth but a great life without disability. But as long as the baby was killed, and then the mother was put into labor and delivered a dead baby, that was perfectly legal.

Unfortunately for this doctor back in 1975, he injected the saline and it did not kill the baby. So the next day he injected saline again, and it still did not kill the baby. So he took the mother to the operating room and performed an operation that he called a hysterotomy, that is, an opening of the uterus which really is an early, very early cesarean section. But instead of delivering that live baby, he reached his hand inside the incision and grabbed the umbilical cord and held it until that baby's heart stopped beating.

There just happened to be a nurse in attendance in that operating room that said this esteemed doctor killed that baby, and there was a court decision, a lot of brouhaha, and in the final analysis, the doctor was acquitted.

But from that day forward, that is when partial birth abortions, Mr. Speaker, started because nobody wanted to be in a situation, no doctor, of trying to abort a baby and inadvertently, deliberately and knowing then that they could not kill the baby because it was outside the mother's womb.

So they devised this procedure of partially delivering the baby. If the baby is head first, put the patient into labor, dilate the cervix, and when that head comes out, crush the skull, or if it is a breach presentation, dilate the cervix, put the patient in labor, and when the baby is delivered to the naval, then go up inside and crush the skull and then deliver and then the baby is dead, and it is perfectly legal.

That is what this is all about, and we are talking about maybe 2,000, 2,500 procedures a year out of the million legal abortions that are performed, mostly in the first trimester.

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable when I read quotes, and this happens to be a quote from a member of the other body and certainly I would not name names here tonight but this is a quote: As a result of today's ruling, the health of women who have dangerous pregnancies is now in deep jeopardy. Women who are in need of this banned procedure will be denied it, even if they risk losing their fertility, becoming paralyzed or sustaining organ damage.

Mr. Speaker, the risk of any of the those things is greater, much greater if they have this procedure done. Our judiciary committee in this House and in the other body have had multiple hearings from physicians across this country that say this procedure does not need to be done to protect the health of the mother, unless you call the health of the mother anxiety over not wanting that baby. There is still an exception that this abhorrent procedure could be done to protect the life of the mother.

Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to take quite this much time, and I know my colleague needs time to conclude, and I thank God for him, too. I thank God for each and every Member that has spoken here tonight, and I will remember them for the rest of my life. I will remember each one of these Members who have spoken and applauded and, yes, smiled on this great day because to me and to them this transcends any other disappointments and frustrations and aggravations that we may have had on both sides of the aisle in maybe not getting our way on a particular piece of legislation here and there. Nothing is more important than this.

I want to say as I conclude, I want to say to my 9-year old identical, twin granddaughters, Allie and Hannah, who were born at 26 weeks, each weighing 1 pound 12 ounces, thank God for your mom and dad, my daughter and son-in-law, Gannon and Hank Manning, that they did not make a decision that they did not want you, even though you were so fragile. God reached down and lifted you up and now you are the beautiful love of our lives, your grandparents, Mommy and Grand Doc, and so proud as you make progress now in the second grade.

I say to my grandson Hank and my brand new grandson Sabine, just 2 weeks old, your brothers, and to my two other grandchildren, of Phyllis and Jerry Collins, little Grey, two-and-a-half years old; and little Marion, 8 months old, Grand Doc is proud of you, and I know that you are proud of Grand Doc. You are proud that he stood here tonight in defense of the sanctity of life, and I know that God's hand is in all of that.

I just say, as I conclude, I am blessed. We are all blessed. We are all blessed to

have this opportunity in a historic moment. No, it does not ban abortion, and most of us hope eventually that there will be no need for that and that the sanctity of life, at the earliest and at the last moments, will be honored and respected.

Again, I just want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks). I am proud to be his classmate. I am proud to be a colleague, and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to talk to my colleagues tonight.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as an original co-sponsor of the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. I join my colleagues from the Science and Technology Committee, Mr. Wu, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Hall and Mr. Ehlers, in introducing this important bill that will ensure our Nation's technological competitiveness for decades to come.

The President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) provides a foundation to keep our country competitive in the ever-expanding global marketplace. The Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act plays an important role in fulfilling this initiative by reauthorizing the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST. NIST labs serve almost every Federal agency and U.S. industry by providing reliable and dependable standards, measurements, and certification services.

As Congress looks to the future of the technology industry in this country, NIST research will prove to be indispensable in the maturation of cutting-edge basic research in becoming successful commercial products. Emerging fields such as nanotechnology and bioengineering are dependent on scientifically-based industrial measurements and standards to see that advanced laboratory research can make that leap into practical industrial applications. I recently visited some of NIST's laboratories and was amazed by the fascinating and vital work its scientists perform.

H.R. 1868 includes 3-year authorization levels for NIST's laboratories which are consistent with the ACI's goal to double the nation's investment in physical science research by 2017. The Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act also authorizes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program-a cost-sharing program that provides technical and business assistance to small and medium- sized manufacturers. This assistance has a proven track record in the manufacturing industry to help companies remain competitive in the global marketplace by improving productivity and efficiency. In addition, this legislation authorizes the Technology Innovation Program that provides grants that encourage the development of high-risk, innovative technologies that will provide widespread economic benefits to companies across the United States.

I thank Chairman Wu for incorporating our priorities for NIST into this comprehensive authorization bill and I look forward to working with my Science Committee colleagues to ensure quick action on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Emily Jennette, a teacher at Sawyer Road Elementary School in Marietta, Georgia, who was recently recognized as our State's Teacher of the Year.

This award could not have gone to a more deserving candidate. Ms. Jennette is an exceptional educator, praised by her fellow teachers for her innovative teaching techniques, a commitment to learning and an outstanding ability to engage her students.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both Ms. Jennette and another Cobb County teacher who was a top 10 finalist, Ms. Jennifer Dawson of Lost Mountain Middle School. Educators are among our communities' most valuable assets. Their gifts impact students in the classroom, and their lessons follow our children throughout life.

Georgia is fortunate to have teachers like Emily Jennette educating our children, and I know she will make our State proud at the National Teacher of the Year competition.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating Ms. Jennette and all the teachers who help mold our children's lives every day.

Congressman Price, I thank you so much for letting me join with you and the Truth Squad in talking about the real truth in regard to what burdens are on the American people, particularly on this day, tax day, April 17. And it reminds me that there is another date coming up pretty soon, and I think that is on April 22, and that is called tax freedom day. And that day gets later and later in the calendar year each and every year. That is how long a person has to work to pay their tax burden, not only to the Federal Government but to local and State and the entire tax burden. Almost a third of the year, Madam Speaker, people have to work to pay the tax burden.

So we in the Republican Party feel very strongly that we need to cut taxes, simplify taxes, lower taxes. And we can do that, and we have done that. We did it in 2001, we did it in 2003. And while we heard from our friends on the other side of the aisle in the previous hour, the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, in regard to the costs to the revenue stream of the tax cuts, saying that we only cut taxes for people making more than $400,000 a year, when in fact, Madam Speaker, everybody who pays taxes got a tax cut under the tax cut provisions that this President and the former majority, the Republican Party, enacted for the American people.

And while, when you crunch the numbers, that was estimated to cost $1.3 trillion, or $130 billion each and every year over a 10-year period of time, because supposedly you would be taking in less revenue, in fact it stimulated the economy; and over a 2\1/2\ year period of time, the amount of revenue that came into the Federal Government actually increased by $250 billion.

So our good friends, the Blue Dogs, play a little bit loose with the truth in regard to their calculus. And really it is not calculus, Madam Speaker, it is simple math. The gentlemen that spoke, the four or five of them in the previous hours, our friends, the Blue Dogs, they would make great red dogs. They come from States that the so-called Blue Dog Democrats are traditionally conservative, they are fiscally conservative. They are conservative on social issues.

And we had the gentleman from Arkansas, we had a Member from Tennessee, we had a Member from Indiana, we had a Member from Ohio. It doesn't surprise me that they would be sounding like Republicans, because many of them represent Republican-leaning, typically traditional districts. And when we earn back our majority, Madam Speaker, I think that the Blue Dogs that we are hearing from, the five by tonight, there are a total of 43, many of them would make great red dogs; and I look forward to the day that they join us.

But, Madam Speaker, in the meantime, I think that I need to talk to them about their math a little bit. They spent some time talking about the debt and the fact that all of this money that we have had to borrow, this $8.8 trillion worth of debt, comes from foreign countries. The gentleman from Arkansas listed, I think, the top nine. And they want to imply that all of the debt is money that we have had to borrow from rogue nations, if you will. But they are not rogue nations.

But the point I want to make, Madam Speaker, is that only about 25 percent of that debt is held by any foreign nation, whether we are talking about Germany or France or Spain or Portugal or, yes, China or India. Seventy-five percent of that debt is held by my mom and my dad and our Blue Dog grandparents and corporate America and the United States citizens. Americans borrow or lend that money to the United States Government because they have faith in the full credit of this great country. So this implication that only rogue nations are willing to borrow money or lend money to this country is totally ludicrous.

And if the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend and colleague, Dr. Price, will indulge me for a few minutes, I want to also point out another very, very misleading figure. They take that debt, that $8.8 trillion worth of debt that has accumulated over a number of years.

Don't forget, Madam Speaker, and my good friends on the other side of the aisle, they controlled this place for 40 years. And that $8.8 trillion worth of debt didn't just occur overnight.

But they take 300 million people, man, woman and child, the population of this great country, and they divide it into $8.8 trillion, and they come up with $27,000 worth of debt for every man, woman and child in this country.

Well, Madam Speaker, what is the gross domestic product, the wealth of this country? I think 2006, maybe would be the last figure that I have, it was about $13 trillion. So you divide that same number into the gross domestic product, you could say that the share of the wealth of this country of every man, woman and child is $44,000.

So, like I say, they are playing a little loose with the numbers, and they go on and talk about this budget resolution that they have got and how they are going to balance the budget and have no deficit over a 5- year period of time and actually have a little bit of money in the bank in 2012.

How do they do that, Madam Speaker? They do it by letting the tax cuts of the Republican majority and our President expire. The decrease in the marginal rate for every person that is paying taxes, the increase, the doubling of the child tax credit, the elimination, and once again, reinserting the marriage tax penalty, and that is total, when you add up every one of those tax cuts that we enacted that they intend to let expire in 2010 and 2011, it is a total, I think, and my colleague from Georgia and my other colleagues that are here tonight will agree, almost $400 billion. And I think that is the largest tax increase on the people of this country in the history of this country.

So here, again, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing out the truth once again, as he does so well in the Truth Squad's discussions. And I thank him for letting me weigh in a little bit tonight. And with that I will yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be before my colleagues on the House floor this evening to talk about a hugely important issue that we will be dealing with once again this week in all probability.

As you know, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, I am talking about the issue of stem cell research. Last week the Senate was in session, and once again the bill that passed on the House floor in the 109th Congress, the Castle-DeGette bill, which would require Federal funding, taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research that was obtained by the destruction of the so-called ``throwaway embryos'' from infertility assisted reproductive technology clinics that couples say they did not want, that these were extras. Well, that bill that passed last year on this House floor passed the Senate last week, and, Madam Speaker, we will be seeing that bill very soon once again.

So, I want to be present tonight to talk about this very, very important issue with my colleagues and anyone that has an opportunity within ear distance of what we are speaking about tonight to help bring an understanding to this issue and to try to convince my colleagues that we can do this; that is, we can do stem cell research as we have been doing over the last several years.

Since President Bush's first term in office way back in 2001, we have been spending Federal tax dollars on stem cell research. But what the President said in August of 2001 was that he would not allow Federal tax dollars, your tax dollars, my tax dollars, those of my family, my parents, my constituents, to be used to fund stem cell research that resulted in the destruction of a human life.

What President Bush did say back then was that embryonic stem cell research that was ongoing, that was a result of cell lines developed from human embryos that had already been destroyed could continue; and Federal tax dollars could be used through the NIH to give grants to these researchers as they applied to use these existing cell lines, which indeed did come from the destruction of human life, as I believe life begins at conception, in these embryos that were taken from fertility clinics.

In fact, Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize that point because it is so important that our colleagues understand that, especially new Members on both sides of the aisle that weren't here for the debate last year, that got the impression maybe they and their constituents felt that this administration and the former leadership of this Congress in the 109th was spending nothing, was refusing to fund stem cell research whether it was adult or embryonic.

But the facts are really brought home by this first slide, Madam Speaker, that I want to present. And this is basically what it says: Our government invested in lifesaving research. The Federal Government has spent $161 million since 2003 on human embryonic stem cell research. As I pointed out, Madam Speaker, the President was willing to allow that funding to continue on those embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created. And there was some 60 of those stem cell lines where researchers could get a grant from the Federal Government and begin that important research on these stem cells.

Before that, no administration, no President, at no time in the 40 years that the Democrats controlled the Congress, certainly not during President Clinton's 8 years, was one dime of Federal tax dollars spent on embryonic stem cell research. Some was spent on adult stem cell research. But when it was suggested by scientists that maybe the embryonic stem cells had more potential to develop into a lot of different tissues and ultimately organs that could possibly help people with diseases, and we have all seen those television spots with celebrities in some cases, Michael J. Fox, who is suffering severely from Parkinson's disease.

The life of Christopher Reeves, we all know about the tragic injury and the quadriplegic state that he suffered in for many years before his tragic death last year.

When you see those things, you know, you think, well, we are not doing anything. But the truth is, and it is very important for us to understand this, that under President Bush, indeed, since 2003, some $608 million has been spent on stem cell research. And a lot of that, as I point out, because of those previous embryonic stem cell lines, a lot of it has been on embryonic stem cell research, and he is the only President that allowed that.

Now, we have great Members in both bodies and on both sides of the aisle. And I have a tremendous amount of respect, Madam Speaker, for the two Members in this body, in this House, that felt that because maybe these embryonic stem cell lines that were previously created that were being used for research would exhaust themselves, that we would use up all those stem cells. We certainly haven't, at this moment. I think there is still 20 of those stem cell lines in existence. Some were found to be contaminated. Originally, I think, back in 2001, we estimated that there were 60 of those lines, and now we are down to 20. So I can understand the concern that maybe we would exhaust that supply.

So Congressman Castle, a Republican Member, Congresswoman DeGette, a Democratic Member, along with the Senate colleagues, Senator

Reid, Senator Kennedy, Senator Specter, in a bipartisan way, felt the same thing. So these two bills came before the respective bodies in the 109th Congress. We did pass the Castle-DeGette bill, but the Senate failed to deal with that, until finally it was decided that they would go ahead and pass a companion bill, and then my colleagues, of course, know that the President, as he had said all along that he would veto that bill, and he did.

But what I want to make sure that the new Members understand is that people like myself, who are pro-life Members of this body, we support stem cell research, with only one exception. We don't support research that requires killing of a human life. And last year, I, along with Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, the gentleman from Maryland, a Ph.D. physiologist who knows more about this subject, I guess, than anybody in this body, and we worked together to develop an alternative bill that would allow us, we the Federal Government, to fund research programs that would use embryonic-like cells to get to the same point without destroying human life. And some of the things that were suggested in the Bartlett-Gingrey bill that we voted on, in this House, in the 109th Congress, were to obtain an embryonic cell from a stem cell from an embryo without destroying that embryo, to be able to, essentially, biopsy with a fine needle and obtain those embryonic cells without killing or even harming in any way that little embryo which had the potential, of course, for human life. We didn't want to destroy that life.

And this was part of the Roscoe Bartlett-Gingrey bill. And we felt that this was sort of a win/win situation, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, because we would be able to get to the same point without any collateral damage. And of course the collateral damage that I am talking about is the destruction of a human life.

And I want to go through a few of the posters that we have, and I want to point out, Madam Speaker, that a lot of our colleagues who are in support of destroying those human embryos, kind of indiscriminately, so that we can obtain the embryonic cells that hopefully can lead to cure of some of these diseases that I mentioned, would say in their argument, look, 75, 80 percent of the American people are in favor of this. How could we deny that overwhelming show of support when you ask the American people do they want us to do this, and therefore, we think we should, and we are going to pass this bill, over the President's objection.

Well, Madam Speaker, as we all know, in regard to a response, it really sort of depends on how you ask the question. If you ask the question, and maybe a person sitting at home gets a telephone call of a pollster, and they have been watching television, and they have just seen a clip of Michael J. Fox and the ravages of Parkinson's disease, or Christopher Reeves, as he sits there with the breathing machine, struggling to talk to the American people about his struggles, and then they get that call, and it is a pollster and they say, would you be in favor of using embryonic stem cells in research to help cure these diseases? And of course that individual may also just happen to have a family member who is in the nursing home suffering from something like Alzheimer's is an example.

And sure, I mean, Madam Speaker, if I were one of those individuals that got that call, I would say, absolutely. Absolutely. So I am surprised the number was only 75 percent. I would think it would be 95 percent, if you phrase the question in that way.

Now, on the other hand, if you said, and you prefaced that with, would you be in favor of your tax dollars going to fund this research on embryonic stem cells that might help cure one of these devastating diseases, then no doubt that number would go down a little bit. I don't know how much, but no doubt. When you start saying, well, now, it is your money. It is not somebody else's money, in the abstract. It is your money. Now, do you want to spend your money, the numbers would not be as high.

But in this, the point I am getting to, Madam Speaker, in this next slide, if you ask the question this way, and this is the only fair way to ask this scientific question, say to the individual, stem cells are the basic cells from which all of a person's tissues and organs develop. Congress is considering the question of Federal funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells. Do you support or oppose using your Federal tax dollars for such experiments? That is the question that should be asked. And when it was asked, in a poll conducted by the International Communications Research in May of 2006, this is what the survey said. Those who support that, 38 percent. Those who oppose it, 47.8 percent. So, Madam Speaker, that really is the crux of what we are talking about in regard to, do the American people support research using embryonic stem cells that result in the wanton, indiscriminate destruction of a human embryo, the so- called extra, and I will get into that point later in the discussion, extra, throwaway, nobody wants them, little babies.

And if you believe as I do that life begins at conception, these embryos are several days to a week, maybe even 10 days old, long past the moment of conception.

We are blessed tonight, my colleagues, to have one of our colleagues join me in this discussion. And she just happens to represent a wonderful district in North Carolina that includes the Wake Forest Baptist University and Medical Center. And I want her to share with us some of the research that is going on there at Wake Forest and the Wake Forest School of Medicine.

I had an opportunity, Madam Speaker, as I was returning to Washington yesterday, to stop at Wake Forest and to visit with Dr. Anthony Atala, who is the president of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University, and to spend about 3 hours with Dr. Atala, to have an opportunity to meet with Dr. Hatch, the president of Wake Forest University, and Dr. Richard Dean who is the dean of the medical school. And with the 150, they weren't all there, but quite a few were, Ph.D. and M.D. scientists that are working there at that great university, and some of the things that they are doing to give us an opportunity to obtain pluripotent, almost embryonic-like stem cells that will help us do this kind of research that our colleagues want us to continue, and the President wants to fund, with no collateral damage.

So at this point I want to yield to my colleague, Virginia Foxx from North Carolina, to tell us a little bit more about that program and take as much time as she wants. And we will continue our dialogue. And I yield now to my good friend, Virginia Foxx.

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

So I just wanted to point that out to my colleague that we are just talking about a few weeks more mature in getting those cells, which are almost embryonic because they are so early.

I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina who I said represents Wake Forest University and Dr. Atala and his team there.

And her closing comments, Madam Speaker, segue really into my next slide in this poster that I've got. What Ms. Foxx said is we have to not go down that slippery slope. We have to consider the collateral damage of what we do. We have to be very, very careful that we are not playing God. And I say

that with all honest, sincerity, that we have an opportunity to do ethical stem cell research; and by that I simply mean balancing life and science.

Ms. Foxx talked about a number of the techniques. She talked about obtaining stem cells from umbilical cord blood. She talked about obtaining adult stem cells from bone marrow or from blood. And she talked about the many successes utilizing research with adult stem cell research. And the cures, I think she mentioned 70 different diseases, including Type I diabetes. There was just a study from Brazil where 13 of 15 Type I juvenile, we call it, it is not always in children, but a lot of children get juvenile diabetes, the severe kind of diabetes that almost always requires insulin therapy, and even with good control, leads to devastating complications, such as blindness, kidney failure, the need for a kidney transplant. Thirteen out of 15 of these Type I diabetics in Brazil who were treated with adult stem cells were found to be months later developing insulin on their own. These stem cells went to the pancreas and became the so-called islet cells, and now 13 out of 15 of those patients are not having to use insulin at all to control their diabetes.

So some of the ethical ways. And then of course we talked about Dr. Atala, who happens also to be chairman of the Department of Urology and operates every day on what you might call routine things, but at the same time is spending a lot of his effort running the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, where they are studying ways to obtain, through amniotic fluid, cells that are neither completely embryonic nor completely adult, but they have qualities that are very similar to both, in being similar to embryonic cells, those that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle mostly, although some Republicans supported the Castle-DeGette as well, the need to use these cells. Well, if you can get the amniotic cells, they can double every 36 hours just like the embryonic cells that we are talking about in destroying a human embryo. But also, similar to an adult cell, they do not form tumors. And that is one of the huge problems that the research on embryonic cells has resulted in.

How do you solve that problem? Well, with Dr. Atala's research, we wouldn't have that problem. These cells would double every 36 hours, and they don't form tumors. The best of both worlds.

I see my colleague from Texas has joined us. He is a fellow insomniac, although it is a little earlier out in Texas and maybe his constituents are still up, certainly some are in California; but it is great to have him with me tonight.

At this point I would like to yield to the gentleman from east Texas and let him join in on this very, very important topic.

If the gentleman would yield, and I really so much appreciate him pointing that out.

I think what the gentleman is saying is, no tumor formation, no collateral damage, no destruction of life, lives that could be adopted and become a ``snowflake'' baby, we have a slide later on to show. But I wanted to mention to my colleague, and I like his comments on this. In addition to the work that Dr. Atala is doing at Wake Forest, and I didn't know this, this is the last year, I say to the gentleman from Texas, but in my great State of Georgia, at the University of Georgia, a Ph.D. researcher, Dr. Steve Stice, has a project whereby embryonic stem cells from embryos can be obtained if it is an embryo that once it is rethawed and there is maybe an attempt to place that in a mother's womb, but if you look at it under the microscope, he can tell if that embryo has the potential for further generation. It is not dead, but you might equate it to, say, a person who has no brainwave activity, the other extreme of life, and has no chance of recovery. Well, Dr. Stice, his research would be to obtain those embryonic stem cells from those embryos so you wouldn't be destroying human life.

And I yield back to my colleague because I wanted to make him aware of that. Our Senator, our junior Senator, who is so prescient and has a way of solving problems when you've got a divide like this, Senator Johnny Isakson, along with Senator Norm Coleman from Minnesota, introduced a bill in the Senate last week and it passed overwhelmingly. I think it got 75 votes. And I hope that we will have an opportunity to vote on that bill in this House if, Madam Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, will allow that to come to voice for a vote; because I can't see why any Member, Republican or Democrat, pro-life, pro-choice, would not want to support that, where it is a win-win situation. I yield back.

Judge Gohmert, I thank you for your kind remarks; and of course you are here not to praise me but to praise God and life and the sanctity of life at the extremes, the embryo and the senior citizens as well.

My colleagues, Madam Speaker, I cannot over-emphasize the point as I look at this and reference you to this next slide. No lives, no lives are thrown away.

We have heard, all of our colleagues have heard people speak on this floor and say there are 400,000 of these extra throw-away embryos available for this research, and they are going to be and I have even heard people say, thrown down the toilet, that they are garbage. I have heard the expression, and I know this is appalling, Madam Speaker, but to hear the expression that it is nothing but medical waste and they are going to be thrown away anyway, I know that gives many of us and you and me and many of my colleagues chill bumps to think about that.

But the point is of these 400,000, those are not all extra and scheduled for the trash can and available for the harvesting of embryonic stem cells. The fact is in April 2002, there were a total of 396,000 embryos that had been placed

in storage, frozen for possible later use. Of those, and that is what this slide points out, 88 percent of these frozen embryos, in fact close to 350,000, are being held for future family building by the donors. They have not completed their family. Maybe they have not gotten pregnant yet. They have not conceived. So 88 percent are going to remain preserved in a frozen state so that hopefully these infertile couples will hopefully at some point in the future become parents.

And only 2.8 percent, about 8,700 of the frozen embryos, are designated for destruction. Couples a lot of times are asked the question: Well, would you like to give this baby up for destruction so that we can get these embryonic stem cells, or would you rather just throw them away? Well, half of the people that own those embryos would say for whatever reason, maybe the same reason that folks sometimes say no, I don't want an autopsy on my loved one; or no, I don't want to donate an organ when I am in a massive automobile accident and I am brain dead. A lot of people will say, look, I don't want my embryo, my child, to be put in a blender for the sake of obtaining those embryonic stem cells. I would rather it be thrown away.

So this business of 400,000 available, it is nothing near that amount. It is very important for people and our colleagues to understand and to put that in perspective.

Madam Speaker, I know our time is running short. We are rapidly approaching the time that this body will be adjourning for the day, a busy day. And I have one poster in particular that I want my colleagues to take a close look at. This is the one that I am presenting now with these precious children.

These were frozen embryos. These were part of the so-called medical waste that was going to be thrown away; or, indeed, put in a blender and churned up, destroying these little lives. Thank God the ones on this poster were adopted by infertile couples, with the permission from the couples who owned those embryos. These are what we refer to as the snowflake babies.

Last year when we were debating this issue, many of them, the parents went out of their way to take time off work, to buy an airline ticket and fly up here with these toddlers, some months old, and some a few years old. And I saw at the White House, as President Bush vetoed this bill last year, he was holding a set of snowflake baby twins. Indeed, throw away medical waste. I think not.

These little children on this poster look a lot like my six grandchildren. I have three precious granddaughters and three precious grandsons, and I think how precious life is.

We need to think about this very, very closely. I want to ask my colleagues this question, just like the survey, the polling done and you ask the question in the right way: some of us are pro-life. Some of us are pro-choice. Some of us are Democrats, some of us are Republicans. But if we have an opportunity to obtain embryonic stem cells, maybe they do have more potential than the adult stem cells. I don't know. I do know they have this problem with tumor formation. But if the argument is our hands have been tied, although we have funded embryonic stem cell research on those existing cell lines, but if the opportunity is there and we considered that tonight and talked about Dr. Atala's work on obtaining nearly embryonic, nearly totipotential cells, we also can do things like biopsy an embryo, that is called pregenetic diagnosis, and we do that all the time now.

If an embryo is from a family that has a congenital defect like hemophilia or muscular dystrophy, you can biopsy that embryo to make sure that condition does not exist. If you can do that without harming the embryo, and it has been done thousands of times, we ought to be able to do the same technique and get embryonic stem cells. It takes some research.

If we can continue to fund scientists like Dr. Stice at the University of Georgia in regard to using those essentially brain dead embryos that don't have any potential for further life and get those embryonic stem cells, we don't have to get into this argument, Madam Speaker, between the pro-life and pro-choice community.

Isn't that, my colleagues, the way to go? I hope there is an opportunity this year in the 110th Congress to vote on that bill and give the President something that he can sign and get back to us and make it law.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at midnight), the House adjourned until today, Wednesday, April 18, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Republican budget substitute, which is the most fiscally responsible budget before us today. It may not a perfect budget, but no real budget can be, because we live in a world of unlimited wants and needs but of limited resources.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank Ranking Member Paul Ryan, my good friend and a fiscal conservative stalwart from Wisconsin, who has truly helped lead the way not only on the Republican budget but also on revealing the true effects of the Democrat budget and substitutes.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget, unlike those offered by the Democrats, does not, I'll repeat, the Republican budget does not raise taxes.

I know these numbers have been cited many times over in this budget debate, but it is important for the American people to fully understand the impact of the new majority's budget policy on their pocketbooks.

Mr. Chairman, the Democrat committee-passed budget raises taxes by almost $400 billion. The Congressional Black Caucus budget raises taxes by $711 billion. The Progressive Caucus Budget raises taxes by almost $950 billion.

Three Democrat budgets, three giant tax increases--and, since baseball season is upon us, I'll say these three budgets sound like strike one, strike two, and strike three--and you know how the rest goes.

However, Mr. Chairman, my Democrat colleagues don't have to strike out because they can vote for a budget that will balance in 5 years without raising taxes; they can vote for the Republican alternative.