Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act.

This bipartisan bill was reported unanimously by the Armed Services Committee, and I am a proud, proud cosponsor, along with my friend, distinguished chairman, Mr. Skelton, and my good friend, ranking member, Mr. Hunter.

Mr. Chairman, we are debating this bill today because all of us here, Democrats and Republicans, want to ensure our soldiers are receiving the high quality care for which our military is known.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, as a physician, I can tell you that access to care is critical to the health and well-being of our military, active, reserve and veteran. While it was a condition of some housing facilities at Walter Reed that led us to examine our military health care system, the fundamental problems with military medical care cannot be fixed with paint, putty and plaster.

I am relieved to know the run-down rooms have been refurbished, but I am proud that this bill starts addressing the system's fundamental problem of

overcrowding, delayed paperwork and a shortage of human capital to oversee soldiers' continuing health care and quality of life needs.

Soldiers I met on a recent visit to Walter Reed were frustrated with lost medical records, dupes to forms, paperwork that took a week to make it from one office to another. This system greatly delays our soldiers' ability to meet with their doctors and to eventually, Mr. Chairman, be discharged.

In fact, the average stay at Walter Reed is 350 days, and many of those days are spent as an outpatient assigned to the medical hold unit waiting for the paper trail to catch up with patient care.

This legislation starts addressing these problems by giving soldiers a louder voice in their medical care. It increases the personnel assigned to each servicemember and his or her family so that our soldiers have advocates helping them set appointments and understand the prescribed course of their care. As a physician, I know that caseload greatly affects the personal attention delivered to each patient. More staff means more time for each soldier and their individual needs.

Mr. Chairman, another problem facing our military health system is the difficulty personnel face when they are transitioning from active duty to the retired status, and I am pleased that this legislation includes a pilot program to examine this critical need. A fully electronic and integrated records system would allow the Department of Defense and the VA to share information in a timely fashion.

I would also encourage the Department of Defense to automate all in- patient health records. We know that in the private sector switching from paper files to electronic medical records cuts down on medical errors, saves time, and saves money. Our military should fully realize these benefits as well.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to recognize that the Wounded Warrior Act fixes a process that isn't serving the best interest of our warfighters or our military medical personnel. Our military doctors and nurses are an invaluable resource for their expertise, bravery, and dedication. We want to make sure that the system benefits these heroes as well.

The Wounded Warrior Assistance Act represents a significant step toward ensuring our soldiers and veterans are treated with the dignity and respect that they have earned and fully deserve, and I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this great piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only in strong opposition to this ``our way or the highway'' rule, but also to the underlying bill, which I believe encroaches on the constitutional principle of separation of power, particularly the President's authority as Commander in Chief.

Regretfully, this rule prevents every single Member of this body, both Democrats and Republicans, from offering an amendment to an emergency wartime supplemental appropriations act, a highly unprecedented attack on the democratic process.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the majority is insistent on a force pullout from Iraq, but the language in this supplemental puts this war and the soldiers' lives on autopilot. This legislation makes a flash-point decision about the war, about our men and women on the ground, with little regard to the actual facts 6 months, a year, and indeed 17 months from now. It looks like ``Magic 8-Ball'' foreign policy.

Last night, Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, it was not made in order, but it would have required this Congress to reevaluate the situation in Iraq at each of these timelines in the so-called Murtha language. So whatever the benchmarks, then we would have to come back and vote again, clean up or down vote, whether or not we want to bring the troops home.

Mr. Speaker, that is especially important at the drop-dead date of August of 2008, when this bill basically says no matter what, the troops come home, even if we have got the bad guys on the run. I think every Member of this body would want to support an amendment like this, so that we would once again be able to vote and reconsider, considering the situation on the ground.

So this legislation sets a dangerous precedent, and I respectfully ask my colleagues, oppose the rule, oppose the underlying bill. Let's work, both Republican and Democrat alike, let's produce a supplemental that will actually pass this House, pass the Senate and be signed by the President. Do right by our American soldiers, and our people and the people in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in outrage over reports that Speaker Pelosi is threatening to revoke committee assignments and earmarks for Democrats who don't support the Iraq supplemental bill on the floor this week.

Talk about a culture of corruption. This is the lowest form of politics. But, sadly, while their strong-arming is audacious and unethical, it is not surprising. We know the Democratic leadership will go to extreme measures to garner votes for this bill, not only by tying troop funding to arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal, but by peppering it with so much pork, you would think our troops needed shrimp and avocados to beat the terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, it is little wonder Democratic leaders are scared to let Members vote their conscience on this bill. After all, even the Los Angeles

Times calls this ``the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.''

But arm-twisting and threats have no place in this people's House, and Americans have every right to be outraged with the current leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening on behalf of the Immigration Reform Caucus of this House of Representatives. Hopefully, as we go forward with the Immigration Reform Caucus in a bipartisan fashion, and our new chairman hopefully will be joining me during this hour, and that is Congressman Brian Bilbray from the great State of California who is determined to make the Immigration Reform Caucus of this House a bipartisan organization, and I really look forward to that change.

As we reach out to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats, I think we can solve this problem of immigration, and in particular, illegal immigration. We have to do that, Mr. Speaker.

This is a hugely important issue. It is an issue to our security, it is an issue to our economy, and it is an issue to this great country, this sovereign Nation, the United States.

Tonight I come to my colleagues to talk about a problem not regarding illegal immigration, we may have an opportunity tonight to discuss some of those issues which are so important and which we have worked so hard on in the 109th Congress and hopefully we will continue to do so in the 110th Congress; but my concerns tonight will be addressed toward a legal immigration problem, Mr. Speaker. Let me repeat that, legal. That is a situation that we refer to as chain migration. Let me try to explain that to my colleagues.

I have here to my left a first slide, if you will, in this presentation. As we look at it, Mr. Speaker, at first glance those in the audience tonight might think, gee, Gingrey is up here with a chart of his high school or college chemistry periodic table; or somebody else may say, no, that is his grandchildren's Pac-Man game. It is a confusing chart to look at, but I am going to hopefully be able to, in a short period of time, to simplify this rather arcane, complex looking first slide. But this really is what this whole problem, this legal immigration problem is about, this chain migration issue, Mr. Speaker.

If my colleagues will focus their attention at the bottom of this first slide, I point to this very prominent kiosk, this icon that would be a legal permanent resident in this country. That individual, man or woman, could be here through any one of several ways of entering this country legally. It could be a skilled worker. And that is indeed why we have an immigration policy, to make our country better, to bring in skilled individuals from countries throughout the world, as we have always done since we started this country. That is the whole purpose of being able to bring individuals in based on what they can contribute. Certainly we want to make their lives better as well, but we want them to be able to contribute to our great Nation and enjoy the privileges of citizenship eventually.

So this individual comes, maybe as one of those legal immigrants, as a skilled worker; or possibly this first person that I am going to refer to at the bottom of the slide is a part of somebody's nuclear family, maybe it is the wife of a legal permanent resident who has already come; or maybe it is a minor child who has grown up and become of age to marry and have a spouse; or possibly this is an individual, a third category, who has sought asylum in this great country. And certainly that is what the Statue of Liberty is all about, that is what the inscription of the bottom of Lady Liberty says in regard to opening our arms to the oppressed and the people that need safety in this great country. So any one of these three categories, Mr. Speaker, of legal permanent residence in this country can start this chain migration. Which clearly, clearly our country never intended that effect.

What happens is this legal permanent resident is able to bring in his spouse or her spouse. And they can legally bring in their minor children. And let's say, based on the current fertility rate south of our border, our southern border, it is three children, three minor children. Now, that is one individual that, by virtue of bringing in an additional skilled worker under the quota for that particular country, has brought in four additional people by virtue of genealogy. And this is, of course, a nuclear family so far. We are talking then about a nuclear family, a husband, a wife and their three children.

Now, once the husband and wife become citizens, then the real problem begins, because at that point then each of the husband and wife can bring in their parents. This is perfectly legal to do this. So there are an additional, assuming that both parents of both the husband and wife are still living, which is very likely, maybe it is a man and a woman on each side who are in their late forties or early fifties.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, again, this one individual that is in this country legally, as a legal permanent resident, hopefully has become a citizen. At that point, then all of his siblings and all of his wife's siblings can come into this country. And that is where the chain really takes off, because you repeat this over and over again. And at the end of 17 years, a short of 17 years and two generations, what you end up with under this insanity of legal chain migration is that one legal permanent resident who was brought into this country as a skilled worker, as an individual seeking asylum from a country in which they are suffering the devastation of oppression, or it happens to be a spouse of a legal permanent resident, that one person in a short span of 17 years can bring in 273 people, Mr. Speaker; 273 people. And that counts against the quota for that country.

So this is the problem, Mr. Speaker, that I think a lot of people just don't realize. We worry about a porous border. We worry about the fact that there are anywhere from 12 to 20 million illegal residents, immigrants in this country, many of them, of course, most of them probably are hardworking, God-fearing, good people, moms, dads, good families, and they are trying to do the right thing. And the only thing that they have committed, of course, is coming into this country illegally. But it is a huge, huge problem for us, as I said at the outset, in regard to the stress and strain on our economy, on our infrastructure, on our safety net programs, on our public school systems. But here we have something that is part of our legal permission to let people come into this country, and then bring in 273 additional extended family members. Not, Mr. Speaker, what we originally intended.

I want to go back and talk about the Jordan Commission. In the early nineties, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan from Texas, a very, very distinguished Member of this body, chaired that commission to study immigration reform and clearly said as part of the recommendations, there were a number of those recommendations, only some of which, Mr. Speaker, were implemented, but one of them was to say very specifically that it should only be a nuclear family, not this situation where because of this chain effect, that in a very short period of time of a couple of generations, or really a short period of 17 years, we end up with 273 people. And they may be good, hardworking, skilled men and women that can contribute to our society, can make their lives better, can make our lives better. But it is really not based on that, it is based totally on genealogy, by virtue of being related in some extended way, first, second, third cousins, aunts, uncles, grandfather or grandmother and on and on and on.

And what that does, other than just overwhelming the number of legal permanent residents who come into this country from a specific country on a yearly basis, indeed, Mr. Speaker, from Mexico to our southern border we are talking about maybe 30,000 a year, and that quota is surpassed in day one of the calendar year.

So you can't say, well, it just doesn't matter; that means maybe you are going to push these skilled workers a little bit further behind in the queue, but they will get there eventually. Well, they may get there eventually, but instead of 2 or 3 years, Mr. Speaker, it may be 15 years, it may be far beyond the time that it would be any advantage to them or us for them to remain in the queue. So this is the problem. We have a solution. I have a solution for it, and I want to talk about that as we go forward.

Mr. Speaker, this next slide that I have again just points out, and I hope my colleagues, I hope this writing is big enough. In case it is not for those in the back of the Chamber, I would be happy to go through it bullet by bullet. But this says ``Chain Migration Equals Inter-Generational Relocation Program.'' It gives visa priority to the cousins, to the adult children and distant relatives of legal immigrants. It creates a backlog of visa applicants. And it allows, and this is the final point on this slide, Mr. Speaker, and of course I have already alluded to these points in my opening remarks, but it allows genealogy, not job skills, not education, not English proficiency to determine who immigrates to our country. We just can't afford that. We absolutely must use common sense and go back to the Jordan Commission recommendation in regard to limiting genealogy entry into this country based not on skills at all, but on just who you happen to be related to. And I will get to that in just a few minutes.

My colleague from Iowa is with us tonight. We call on him a lot, but he is always forthcoming with very, very good, useful information on many subjects, not the least of which is the issue of immigration. I am talking about Representative Steve King, my classmate. I thank him for joining me during this hour, and I look forward to his comments.

I would like to go ahead and yield the floor to him now for however much time as he would like to take. We can colloquy back and forth. And I certainly appreciate him being with us this evening.

And the same thing, as I said at the outset, anywhere from 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants we estimate, and we hear talk about the need for a comprehensive bill that would include letting them pay a little fine and fess up and get a clear ID card, identify themselves, and all of a sudden become a permanent legal resident on a track to citizenship. Each one of those 20 million then could start this chain migration.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank him, and I would like to do it formally. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), who is chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus in the 110th Congress. I look forward to his leadership on this caucus of the Congress, this bipartisan effort on his part. The gentleman from California certainly knows of what he speaks.

I thank the gentleman, and I hope the gentleman will be able to stay and continue as we have a colloquy on this issue.

Just by coincidence, we have the Catholic caucus here, as we have the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Iowa and myself, so we know about these large families.

But to put it in perspective, in regard to numbers, Mr. Bilbray mentioned the fact that a million come into this country as permanent legal residents every year. It varies from country to country and hemisphere to hemisphere, the overall quota. And then that million additional that come in under all of the visa programs, the H-1B, et cetera, temporary agricultural workers and various skill levels, you are talking about an additional million.

But from 1776 to 1976, 200 years of our country's existence, the average number of immigrants was about 250,000. So that just shows you where we are today; and of course we are not talking about the 3 or 4 million illegals if we don't close down our border and secure our border. Not close it down, secure our border. Then you are going to have 3 or 4 million illegals in addition to that.

The gentleman from Iowa has been mighty quiet for the last few minutes, and I yield back to him.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa. I want to move back now for just a moment and focus again on the solution to this problem of chain immigration, and we will get into further discussion of some of the many things this Congress, and the 109th Congress when we were in the majority and led this great House of Representatives, some of the many good things that have been done in regard to controlling illegal immigration.

But let me just for the moment, before my colleagues some possibly have to leave, refocus on this issue of chain migration, Mr. Speaker, because we have presented the problem. We have spent maybe 20, 25, 30 minutes talking about the problem of chain migration, the one person bringing in 273 others, not based on skill, strictly being, I guess, based on the luck of your birthright, geneology, and how inappropriate that is and how we cannot afford to continue to do this. We have a solution.

But Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to call my colleagues' attention to this next slide, and again, it depicts on this scale of justice, as we have here in the middle of this slide, on the one side you have an imbalance, too much emphasis, too much weight in regard to the second cousin of an immigrant, i.e., chain migration.

On the other side, however, not weighing so heavily in this scale of this balance of justice is the skilled laborer waiting to emigrate into this country.

This is what this hour is mainly about, Mr. Speaker, that we need to correct this. We need to get back to what Congresswoman Barbara Jordan recommended to this House back in the early 1990s as she chaired the Commission on Immigration Reform.

Basically, this is what she said, Mr. Speaker, in this next slide: Proposed tripartite immigration system, legal immigration. That basically, as I said at the outset of the hour, people come to this country first and foremost maybe as a skill-based worker, skill-based admission; or possibly on the far side of the slide, come in as a refugee for humanitarian reasons, a humanitarian admission; and then, finally, the nuclear family admissions that Congresswoman Jordan, the distinguished lady from the great State of Texas talked about, nuclear family admissions, Mr. Speaker.

That is the solution to this problem, and how we got away, how we did not follow her recommendation, there were a number of things that were recommended that were enacted by this body, but we missed the most important, and that is in regard to nuclear family admissions.

This print is far too small for my colleagues to see, even in the front of the room, so I want to point out, under nuclear family, the first priority would be spouses and minor children of United States citizens, under the nuclear family. The second priority would be parents of the United States citizens, and the third priority, as we talked about, would be spouses and minor children of legal immigrants. Of course, hopefully they will become and we want them to assimilate into our society. We want them to be part of this great country, the United States of America, and at that point of course they could bring their parents, both husband and wife, as part of this nuclear family.

Mr. Speaker, in my final slide, here is the result of that. Again, this is the initial skilled worker that comes in legally. This is her husband or his wife and their three minor children. That is a total of five people, one permanent legal resident and an additional four. Now, when husband and wife become citizens of the United States, then each of them under this new Nuclear Family Act, and that is what I want to present to my colleagues tonight, the bill that I have introduced, H.R. 938, remember that number, many of you on both sides are considering signing on to this bill. Many of you already have. I think we are up over 60 at this point, and hopefully, there will be many more when they understand the magnitude of this problem that we are presenting tonight.

So H.R. 938, the Nuclear Family Priority Act, taken almost verbatim from Congresswoman Barbara Jordan's recommendations back in 1990, again, a distinguished Democratic Member of this body, these two, husband and wife, when they become citizens, they can bring their parents. Assuming both parents are living, then that is four additional people, and then they in turn having become citizens can bring their parents in. There is a possibility that if the parents were divorced and remarried, that instead of two on each side, there would be four.

I do not want to confuse my colleagues with another arcane slide, but basically, this is the bottom line to take home. On this slide, if all of these people came in under the Nuclear Family Priority Act, you are talking about 35 people. Chain migration, which currently is the policy, you are talking about 273 people.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about cutting that down by 87 percent, and that is not small change. That is a significant solution to this problem, moving in that direction to enact the Nuclear Family Priority Act.

So, again, it is straightforward. I leave this slide up and let my colleagues continue to look at it. I want to yield back now to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from California, the gentleman from Iowa, for being with me tonight. The hour is getting late. I appreciate their sharing their knowledge. It is so important that our colleagues do that, because we have very bright Members of this body on both sides of the aisle. We are not all experts on every issue, but we help one another. We share our knowledge. We rely on each other.

I am very grateful to Mr. Bilbray and Mr. King of Iowa for being with me today, to help me talk about not just this issue of chain immigration, that's the main focus of the hour, but to discuss the overall problem of Georgia.

It is a huge problem. We can't really afford to turn our backs and shut our eyes and bury our head in the sand with regard to 3 or 4 million additional people coming in every year illegally on top of those 2 million that are coming, as the gentleman from California pointed out in his earlier remarks. There is no way, this country cannot sustain that.

He talked about the cost in California and their problem, indeed, as a border State, is a lot bigger than it is in the State of Georgia. Of course, their population approaches 55 million, and the population of Georgia is 9.3 million. But on a percentage basis, we have a huge problem in Georgia as well, maybe fourth or fifth number percentage- wise of illegal immigrations of any State in this country. I think the last count in Georgia was about 750,000.

We have got a problem. Certainly, we are a great country. I think that we have done some great things in the history of this Nation. Indeed in 1969, we put a man on the Moon. If we can do that, we can solve this problem. We just need to have the will. I think my colleagues are helping bring that to the attention of the Members of this House and this Congress, both House and Senate, to the administration, to the American people. I like it when we talk during these times to our colleagues in a bipartisan way and say that, look, we can do this together. We all worry about who has got the power and who is in control, and who is in the majority, and who is the Speaker, and who are the committee chairs, and who is the next President. Of course, that will be upon us pretty soon.

But in the meantime, there are so many things that we can do in a bipartisan way and really pat ourselves on the back, because I don't think our constituents care whether the Democrats solve this problem or the Republicans solve this problem. They want us to do it in a unified way.

We have got such a few more on the Democrats side of the aisle in this 110th, a few more on our side of the aisle in the 109th back to 1994, these things go back and forth. But we can't let that tie our hands and keep us from going forward and getting things done for the American people.

I know that my colleagues that are here with me tonight, and I think all the colleagues of this 435-Member body would hopefully say, right on, Gingrey, we agree with you on that.

You know who else would be pleased, and that is the employers in this country, and a lot of the industries. In Georgia, I mean we have got agriculture, we have the poultry industry, we have the carpet industry. We all have the homebuilding industry in every State, and I know that most of my friends that are in those businesses pay good wages, they pay good benefits, they are treating their employees in a compassionate way.

In return, they are getting a heck of a day's work for their wages that they pay, and I think they would welcome, I think that the employers would welcome. I know Representative King, in a bill that he introduced in the last Congress and has championed in regard to an identification system that is foolproof, and we can do that, we can have a tamper-proof, biometric identification card. And I think our employers, and I have talked to many of them, and I commend them, but there may be a few that are paying low wages and gaming the system. You always have that problem. But we will ferret them out.

At the same time, kudos to those who are playing by the rules and doing the right thing.

There is no question about that.

The point the gentleman from Iowa is making is that we have really tried hard in this body to address this problem. We on this side of the aisle, when we were in control and had the majority in the 109th, felt very strongly that first and foremost to solve the problem and ultimately decide what to do with the 20 million that are estimated to be here illegally, is to stop the hemorrhaging. As a physician member, I use that expression a lot, having been a surgeon in my previous life, OB/GYN physician, but you have to stop the bleeding. If you sit there and let the patient continue to bleed, and that is analogous to the porous borders, the 3 or 4 million that continue to come in every year, in addition to the 2 million that the gentleman from California was talking about earlier, then the patient is going to die. That patient, as the lifeblood seeps out of us, is the United States of America.

So it is so important to do the things that we have done, tried to do in regard to Mr. Sensenbrenner's legislation. He was a champion in regard to the REAL ID Act. Basically the REAL ID Act was just in response to the request of the survivors of the 9/11 victims. As they testified before the 9/11 Commission and made those recommendations, 41 or so specific recommendations, one of the most important ones was to say you have got States that issue driver's licenses without requiring any proof of legal residency. The 9/11 hijackers, 19 of them I think, had something like 53, a total in the aggregate of 53 legal issued driver's licenses from some 10 or 12 States.

So basically what we said is, look, we can't tell you, we the Federal Government can't tell the States how to run their motor vehicle department and how they issue driver's licenses and to whom and how long and how much you pay for driver's licenses, what age you have to be, whether you have to take driver's ed or not. That is a State prerogative, certainly. But if they do not have proof of legal residence, not citizenship, because a permanent legal resident certainly can be granted a driver's license, then they can't use that license from that State for Federal purposes, like getting on an airplane and blowing it to smithereens or using it as a guided missile.

I see Mr. Speaker is tapping me down. I didn't realize, I was having so much fun with my colleague from California, the chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, that all of a sudden our time has expired.

I appreciate his patience and indulgence. I continue to promote the Nuclear Family Protection Act. Let's all get behind it and thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this looks like Georgia night in the great Chamber of the House of Representatives. My colleague, Representative Price, just talked about one of the most important debates that we have had in this body in a long time and will have in regard to the situation in Iraq and the Commander in Chief and the constitutional right for the Commander in Chief to make the decisions along with the combatant commanders.

These issues are hugely important. Things like the energy crisis that we faced 25 years ago, and we are facing again today, are hugely important issues. In fact, former Vice President Gore will be before the Science and Energy and Commerce Committees on Thursday talking about global warming and what we think we ought to do in regard to not only solving the energy crisis, but to keep from polluting the atmosphere. Hugely important issue.

Trying to solve the crisis that is looming in regard to the entitlement spending which is, that along with the interest on the debt, is probably approaching 65 percent of what we spend each year in a $2.7 trillion budget, hugely important issue.

Then, Mr. Speaker, every now and then along comes something that maybe does not get at first notice very much. There is not a lot of press. It is not one of the marquee issues of the day, but what I am speaking to my colleagues about tonight is also hugely important, and it, thank goodness, is beginning to get the attention that it deserves.

That is an issue that I, as a physician and OB/GYN specialist in particular, physician Member of this body, feel very, very strongly about. What I am referring to is the recent decision by one of the Governors of our 50 States to mandate that young girls in the public school system of that particular State would be required to receive a new vaccine, which I will describe in detail in just a minute.

They would be required before they could enter the sixth grade, the sixth grade, we all know sixth, seventh and eighth, and in some cases, considered the middle school years. So coming out of elementary or what I used to call grammar school, where there are many of these young girls, including my precious granddaughters, are still thinking about watching Little House on the Prairie as an example or playing with their dolls, would be required, just like they would be required to have their shots up to date in regard to measles and mumps and rubella and chickenpox, these highly contagious, infectious diseases that can be acquired just on casual contact; if you sneeze in the vicinity of a classmate, the disease is spread. This new vaccine, though, is not against one of these highly contagious communicable diseases, no, Mr. Speaker.

This vaccine, called Gardisil, is a vaccine against cervical cancer- causing viruses, referred to as human papilloma virus, or HPV. There are probably 100 strains of that virus in existence that have been identified, but four of them, virus number 6, number 11 and particularly number 16 and number 18, have been associated with the dreaded disease of cervical cancer about 70 percent of the time. About 70 percent of the cases that occur, the 9,000 new cases that occur in this country every year, are associated with that HPV virus. So there is certainly a suggestion, a strong suggestion, of cause and effect.

One of our great pharmaceutical companies in this country developed a vaccine that was approved a year ago, June of 2006, to prevent the contraction of this HPV virus, and it is a great vaccine. The studies, the phase III trials, while there, Mr. Speaker, may be some minor side effects, the safety seems to be there. The recommendation, of course, is that sexually active young women between the ages of, well, actually 9 and 16, I would hasten to add that there are not too many 9-year-olds that are sexually active, but the vaccine is approved for those in that age group.

It is thought that a series of three vaccines, given a month or two apart, at the cost of $360 just for the vaccine, probably up to $500 once you add the cost of going to a physician, going to a gynecologist and having these vaccines administered, the cost of an office visit, the administration of the vaccine, probably a $500 charge, but a good investment in this humble Member, physician Member, former gynecologist, in his opinion, probably a good choice for a young woman even at the age of 14 or 15, if she is sexually active or going to be sexually active, or maybe even a little bit younger if her parents are concerned about that possibility.

Then I think the vaccination that has been developed by this pharmaceutical company and the vaccine referred to earlier, Gardisil, I would highly recommend, and if I was still practicing medicine, Mr. Speaker, and a mom brought her daughter in and asked me about that and said that she heard about it and wondered if I would recommend it, I would absolutely recommend it.

But what was done in the last month or so, and this Member just happened to notice, and that is why I say this maybe seems like a small thing, but what it does is the mandate was issued that every single girl in that State at age 11, before going from elementary school, grammar school, to middle school, would have to have that vaccine, or she would not be able to continue in that public school system.

Mr. Speaker, that is just flat wrong, and my bill that I introduced the very next day in this body, H.R. 1153, the title of that bill is the Parental Right to Decide Protection Act, because this is all about the rights of a parent to decide what is best for their child. There is no State interest in this because, as I point out, you do not contract human papilloma virus by casual contact. No, it is by sexual activity, and to force every single 11-year-old child in this country to get that vaccination or they cannot go to the public school system, even though they have paid their property taxes, they live in that school district, they have been in that school district, they have supported that school district, and their parents teach their children, maybe they believe firmly in abstinence-based sexual education, but they have that right to decide. The State does not have that right.

That is why I say to my colleagues tonight that this is a hugely important issue. Cancer is a dreaded disease. We all probably would choose any other way to die than from a long, protracted case of any kind of cancer. Cervical cancer worldwide is probably the second leading cause of cancer death in women. That is not true in the United States. It may be the ninth or tenth or eleventh but it is too many. There are probably 9,700 new cases of cervical cancer in this country every year, and of those, approximately 3,700 die, and that is too many. We need to do everything that we can to prevent cervical cancer, and that is why I say the vaccine is a good thing.

That is why I say that I, as a compassionate physician Member of this body, would recommend that vaccine to someone who has either told their parents that their daughter and her boyfriend are sexually active or they plan to be sexually active, and that could be 14 years of age. I know we all would hope that it would not be, but our daughter or granddaughter, but it could, and in those cases the recommendation to voluntarily take this opportunity to get that immunization on board really before they become sexually active, certainly before they become sexually active with multiple partners, is a good thing, but it is not a good thing to mandate it and to require it.

We will talk about this throughout the hour, and I am very, very pleased to welcome one of my colleagues, a new Member, a very bright Member. He does not seem like a new Member because he is doing such a great job in these first 3 months of the 110th Congress. At this point I would like to yield to my good friend Mr. Jordan for his comments.

I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Ohio, and this point about opt in-opt out, on most of the bills that have been introduced, probably, in maybe 23 or 24 States, not a Governor issued a mandate, but where bills were actually introduced. The opt-out provision actually requires one of two things, either a doctor's excuse or the parent to sign that they want their child to not take the vaccines, but they have to have it notarized.

Just think about the burden that really puts on people to try to find a notary. I mean, it's just not that easy to do, and it's certainly not easy to get a doctor to write an opt-out provision.

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, for being with me tonight as long as he can stay. I appreciate his input, his comments. He is right on target.

Statistics suggest, and this is actually from the center of the CDC in Atlanta, my home, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that about 6.2 million Americans become infected with HPV each year. Over half, now listen to this, my colleagues, over half of all sexually active men and women become infected at some time in their lives, over half of all sexually active men and women become infected at some time in their lives with the HPV virus.

Now, if you do the math on that, and I think I am correct if my Georgia Tech math serves me well, that means that about 0.2 percent, 0.2, not 2 percent, but 0.2 percent of women who are actually infected with HPV virus, 16 or 18, the virus that this vaccine would prevent, even if they contract the virus, only 0.2 percent.

Well, I said at the outset of the discussion that accounts to, in this country about 9,700 new cases of cervical cancer each year and over 3,000 deaths. Even though it's a small, small number, it has significance, clearly. But you have to ask yourself if that would warrant vaccinating mandatorily every little 11-year-old girl in every public school system in all 50 States of this country.

I don't have the number, how many little girls that would be; but I will tell you one thing, it's far more than this number. Then there are some other things that we can discuss in regard to risk and adverse reactions, even though the FDA, and I don't disagree with the decision, the trials that show this vaccine is safe, but yet it has only been on the market for less than a year. All of a sudden, the big experimental model is going to be my granddaughters and your daughters all across this country. I think that is absolute insanity.

At this time, I want to yield to my good friend from New Jersey, my classmate, Representative Scott Garrett, for his comments.

I really appreciate my friend from New Jersey. As we all know, every Member in this body knows, he is a strong, strong fiscal conservative. He pointed out the fact that we have very limited dollars. Every day, each one of us, Representative Jordan, his constituents come up here from Ohio, and Representative Garrett's constituents from New Jersey, mine from Georgia, and each one of them has a request. Many of them are health-care related.

Today I was visited by a mom who has two autistic children. Maybe my colleagues had constituents advocating on behalf of more funding for autism, and it goes on and on and on. It is our job, with limited dollars, to try to decide how to apply them for the greater good.

I really appreciate the gentleman's comments in regard to putting the money where it's going to be most effective and not to waste it, not to waste those precious dollars. As he pointed out, you can only spend that dollar once.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for being with us tonight. I mentioned at the outset about the statistics with regard to cervical cancer worldwide being the second leading cause of cancer death in women, but maybe 9th or 10th in this country, and the difference is attributed to the fact that in this country, since the mid-1940s with the discovery of the pap smear, the value of the pap smear to screen for cervical cancer was discovered. Annual checkups were recommended for sexually active, certainly for sexually active adult women, and, again, that could start at age 14 in many instances. In some instances, it may be when a young girl is going off to college, or maybe on occasion it is not till someone is 22 or 23 years old.

But at that point in her life, the most important way to prevent cervical cancer or to be able to have early detection, when it can be cured, is by having that physical examination done on a timely basis.

For the most part, the recommendation is a yearly exam. And I think most women in this country get that examination on an annual or maybe every 2-year basis if they have gone several years with normal Pap smears. And it is very simple, almost painless, not something that they would rush to have done, but women know the importance of this for their protection.

Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns that unless we do a great job of educating the public in regard to this vaccine, that women might get the idea that, first of all, the vaccine protects them against sexually transmitted diseases. And it does protect them against HPV virus, that virus that causes genital warts in the 0.2 percent of cases that can actually lead to cervical cancer, but it offers no protection against things like herpes and syphilis and HIV/AIDS. And I could go on and on and on, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to do that and get overly descriptive. But it only protects against that one sexually transmitted disease that is associated with cervical cancer.

I want to give my colleague from New Jersey an opportunity in the time left to weigh in a bit.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

As I was pointing out in regard to this annual checkup, it is not just for the Pap smear and for screening for cervical cancer, but also for a complete wellness examination in women to detect very early breast cancer, a small lump that maybe the patient cannot detect or that is not picked up on a mammogram. But the opportunity is so invaluable to screen for not only cervical cancer, but for colon cancer and breast cancer.

So the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important than that periodic checkup for adult women to have every 1 or 2 years to make sure that if they do come in contact with something like HPV or any other sexually transmitted disease, you are going to be able to treat that and treat it successfully.

Cervical cancer is not something that a person is exposed to or the causative agent like human papilloma virus, it is not an exposure 1 month and cervical cancer the next month or 6 months later or 1 year later, or maybe in many instances not even 5 years later. It goes through, thank goodness, a very slow progression, and there is great opportunity to treat at various stages and to treat successfully. But clearly, the earliest detection when there is just a slight abnormality is the best opportunity to treat.

And, of course, with this introduction of this vaccine, which I highly recommend, but not on a mandatory basis and not be forced upon our 11-year-old, as I pointed out, daughters and granddaughters, not my granddaughters, this is wrong. It is the government interfering between the doctor, the parents, and the patient. And it seems to me that it is such common sense that when I introduced this bill; and I want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I am soliciting cosponsors, and that list is growing every day.

I want my colleagues to understand that what this bill does is simply state this: If you force your youngsters, your 11-year-olds in whatever State we might be talking about, maybe my own State of Georgia, hopefully they wouldn't do that, but if legislation is passed, and the Governor approves of it, then my bill says the Federal Government will not participate in the cost of those vaccines that are forced on our young children either through the Medicaid program or the SCHIP program, the childhood vaccination program, the Federal program.

All these are wonderful programs, these safety net programs. I am a very strong advocate of that, of continuing things like SCHIP, to even strengthen it. And, parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, my State of Georgia with their Peach Care program, that is what SCHIP is referred to in Georgia, they have done such a wonderful job of seeking out those children that don't have insurance and covering them, and I commend my colleagues in the Georgia General Assembly, I commend my Governor, Governor Sonny Perdue, for doing such a great job. But I think they would agree with me and they would agree with my friend from New Jersey and my friend from Ohio, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Jordan, that it is inappropriate expenditure of dollars to take a shotgun approach and force children who have a right to a public education, indeed they are paying for it through their property taxes in most States in this country, and then to say to them you can't enroll in the fifth or sixth grade in middle school because you haven't had this vaccine. It is totally inappropriate. And that is not just this Member's opinion, it is the opinion of all those cosponsors who have signed on to H.R. 1153.

Mr. Speaker, I have got a few charts that I wanted to show. This first one, the American College of Pediatricians and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are both opposed to any legislation which would require HPV vaccination for school attendance. We have already talked about the vaccine being approved last June and the studies that were done, and it is approved for females age 9 to 26.

But what they don't know yet, and I have talked to the company that manufactured Gardasil, they say that they really don't know how long the vaccine will last and how much immunity will be given. They think about 5 years, but they are not sure. Maybe it will last longer. Maybe when they do blood studies 5 years later, they will find that the antibody level against this type 16 and 18 HPV virus is high enough that the person doesn't need a booster. But like tetanus shots, of course we know that very typically, the same thing with hepatitis, sometimes these vaccines, the immunity will subside, and the patient is once again at risk, and they will have to get another shot.

So if the vaccine gives immunity for 5 years, and you give it to every single 11-year-old, I would say 99.99 percent of whom are not sexually active, and you spend $500 either through their own insurance program or out of Mom and Dad's pocket or subsidized through the Federal Government, Medicare, Medicaid; you give them that shot and it lasts 5 years, and let's just assume it wears off by the time they are 16, just about the time that they are falling in love and become sexually active with their boyfriend, and that is the very

time that they need the protection, and the vaccine has worn off, and we have no guidance. At this point we have no guidance.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly the wrong thing to do, and my bill would say that in any situation where this is a voluntary program, an opt-in program, not an opt-out, we don't make parents jump through hoops and go get a notarized signature, or take a half day off work and go to their doctor and maybe have to have paid for a doctor appointment just so they can get a letter signed so their child doesn't have to get this vaccine. That is insanity.

We need to do a good job. We physicians, those of my colleagues who are still practicing, especially my good OB/GYN friends across this country and primary care doctors everywhere, pediatricians need to talk to their parents, talk to their patients and explain that this great vaccine is available, and it has a potential for great good. And I am sure that many, many doses of those vaccines will be sold.

And I hear my colleagues in this body many times bashing the pharmaceutical companies and Big Pharma, and I heard that so much as we were passing the great Medicare prescription drug part D program for our needy seniors back in November of 2003, really beat up on the pharmaceutical industry. But this is a good company, and this should be a profitable product for them. And when they first came out with the vaccine, Mr. Speaker, it was their recommendation, and they worked with State legislators, particularly female State legislators, across the country and said maybe this would be a good idea to have it mandatory in the schools.

But to their credit, after this Governor made it mandatory, not by legislation, but just by rules and regulations in his decision, there was so much public outcry against that that the company now understands that that is not the right way to go, and that is to their great credit. They understand that they have got a great product, but it is not something that should be mandatory. It should be available. It should be available, though, for those who need it most.

Mr. Speaker, I am a real strong advocate for a public education. Now, I have a background of going to a Catholic school when I was growing up, but I also have a background of being on a school board in the city of Marietta, Georgia, in Cobb County, my first venture into public service, and I love that public school system. And all my children, adults now, all four, and thank God I am soon to be the father of my seventh grandchild by those four children, went to that public school system, and we loved it. We had friends that either home-schooled their children or went to private school for various and sundry reasons, and I don't argue with that at all. In fact, given the same circumstances, I would maybe have made the same choices. But I want to see our public schools in this country, in my State of Georgia, in every State, I want to see them thrive and do well. And I firmly believe in the principles of No Child Left Behind, that each and every youngster, no matter where they started in life, that they have that equal opportunity at the brass ring in our public system schools across this country.

But when you start doing things like this, and that is why at the start of the hour, when I said, you know, this might not be a marquis issue like what is going on in the Middle East or global warming or the economy, this is hugely important, because if you force this, if you mandate this in the public school system, you are going to see, you talk about a flight without vouchers to home schooling and to private schooling, and we don't want to see that. I don't want to see that. I want what is best for the youngsters. And I think that we need to keep a hands-off in regard to this.

I have got a few letters here, Mr. Speaker, that I could share. I have got one from a Phyllis Schlafly with the Eagle Forum who is supporting us on this issue.

I have a letter here from the Concerned Women of America. I will just read the first paragraph. And this is what they say: ``Dear friends, CWA, Concerned Women for America, gives kudos to Representative Phil Gingrey, Republican from Georgia, a former obstetrician gynecologist, on a bill that he plans to introduce. Congressman Gingrey's bill will prohibit Federal funds from being used to implement a mandatory, let me emphasize, a mandatory vaccine program for human papilloma virus, a sexually transmitted disease and a cause of cervical cancer. CWA urges you to call your Member of Congress and ask them not only to cosponsor this bill, but to take whatever action they can to pass it.''

I appreciate that, and it is not for kudos or thanks that I am up here tonight. Mr. Speaker, as we do these Special Orders on both sides of the aisle, people do this because they have a commitment to a cause. And I have a commitment to a cause, and that is the cause of our young people that we make sure that we don't take away the parental right to decide. That is sacrosanct in my mind, and that is why I am here tonight spending this time with my colleagues to try to urge you to sign on to H.R. 1153, and let's do this right.

Once again, as I move to closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that everybody listening in this Chamber and anybody that can hear my voice far and near understands that this bill simply says, if you force it upon our public school children, whatever State we are referring to, then we are not going to pay for that for those children who otherwise can't afford it. But absolutely, if it is appropriately done, and it is a voluntary program, an opt-in program, and I think parents are smart enough, and certainly young girls, when they get to high school, are smart enough to know that if this is available, they are going to take advantage of it; and to understand that if they don't have insurance, and they can't afford it, that we have these programs, these Federal- State programs like Medicaid and like the SCHIP program, and the Federal childhood vaccination program, so that this opportunity will not be denied to those who need it, as Representative Garrett pointed out, but we won't be wasting money on those who don't need it and don't want it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will close. And I want to thank my colleagues. I want to thank you for your attention. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio, our new Member, Mr. Jordan, and I want to thank my classmate, Member Scott Garrett from New Jersey, for being with us tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recall the exceptional life of Reverend Raymond Moss of Marietta, Georgia. Reverend Moss passed away this month at the age of 79, leaving behind a long legacy as an advocate of social justice and civil rights.

Reverend Moss was a fixture in Cobb County. After a brief stint in Minor League Baseball and a job as draftsman at Lockheed Martin, Moss found his true calling, and in 1959 he started Back to the Bible Holiness Church, the first homegrown Black church in Cobb County.

He went on to build 14 more churches in Georgia and Alabama, and helped lead the Cobb community during the turbulent civil rights era.

Reverend Moss was a compassionate father not only to his own 14 children, but to any member of the Marietta community in need of a mentor.

In fact, I first came to know the Reverend 30 years ago while practicing medicine with one of his dear friends, Dr. Douglas Glover. Indeed, many of Reverend Moss' faithful came to my office for care, and all had been deeply touched by the Reverend's compassion.

I know these members of our community will carry on his dedication to compassionate service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in honoring the life of Reverend Raymond Moss.

Mr. Speaker, I really thank the gentlelady for yielding. And

I am sitting here chuckling a little bit here at that comment, too much month left over at the end of the money. If that doesn't cut to the chase, I don't know what does. And certainly I want to compliment my colleagues from the 108th Congress.

Of course I will yield.

And I thank the gentlewoman; and absolutely right on target. I also share her love of country music as well.

But when we did that press conference today, Mr. Speaker, with our Communications Chair of the Republican Study Committee, our chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and John Campbell, the gentleman from California, who chairs our Subcommittee on the Budget and Spending Task Force and many other of the members of the Republican Study Committee and talked about this four point Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Everything has got an acronym. You could call that TABOR, I guess, TABOR. But the gentleman from Texas who just preceded me outlined those 4 points. I don't need to go back into that.

But clearly, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is just as important, as one of the Hosses from the State of Georgia, our dear esteemed colleague, Charlie Norwood introduced a bill a number of years ago, the Patient Bill of Rights. I love that. The Patient Bill of Rights. I wasn't a Member at the time. It inspired me to become a Member, because he was concerned about the physical well-being when the excesses of the managed care industry, if you will, were really causing people a hard row to hoe to get to their doctor of choice. And Charlie Norwood, Dr. Charlie, had that Patient Bill of Rights because he was concerned about the physical well-being of America. And what we are talking about now is the fiscal well-being in this Taxpayer Bill of Rights, equally as important.

And again, I am proud to be supportive of my colleagues in the Republican Study Committee. I hope that we can have the Blue Dog Democrats embrace this TABOR, Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker. This is the season of Lent. It is the season when Christians reflect on their spiritual life, and they think about repentance and doing things better and being better toward their fellow man and making sacrifices.

And I will tell you, I have thought about that during this Lenten season; we are midway at this point, of my political life and what changes I, as a Member, can make, representing those 650,000 constituents in the 11th District, Northwest Georgia, what can I do better for them?

Have I lost my way a little bit?

I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. And these are my two good friends that are on the floor with me. They have not lost their way. And they have been an inspiration to me from day one, back in 2003, when we were sworn in, in regard to their total commitment to fiscal responsibility and taking that leadership role.

I have been maybe, from time to time a little bit squishy. Some of those people that come in, you know, it is easy, everybody needs a little bit more. Just what is going to make you happy? Well, just a little bit more spending from the Federal Government.

But I am recommitting myself during this Lenten season, both spiritually and politically, because what has really happened, Mr. Speaker, and I think my acting Legislative Director said this to me as we were chatting earlier this evening. He said, you know, Congressman, what has happened here is the Federal Government has become this giant riding lawnmower, this giant riding lawnmower, when the Founding Fathers really intended it to be a weedeater, and that is exactly what has happened. We need to go back and with this Taxpayer Bill of Rights, go back to the days when the Federal Government was a weedeater, and we can do it. And I commend my colleagues, and I appreciate the opportunity to share those thoughts with my colleagues tonight.

And I yield back.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is going to be like two discussions, one from the professor and the other one from maybe his first year master's program student. Although I have a M.D., Dr. Bartlett, of course, is a Ph.D. physiologist, and as he explains this, it is compelling, the evidence that he gives.

Sometimes I get a little lost in the science myself, but I think the main thing to know about the bill that he has introduced, and introduced in the last Congress and introduced again in the 110th this year, H.R. 322 is an alternative way to obtain almost totally potential, totipotential embryonic, almost embryonic stem cells, without getting into this moral-ethical dilemma of the question of are you for life at its earliest and its most advanced stages, are you pro- life or pro-choice. This is a debate that will go on probably for long after we are all gone and other people have taken our places on both sides of the aisle.

But what I like about the Bartlett bill, H.R. 322, is it says, Mr. President, we don't have to divide the country over this issue. It has been divisive. The President made a very difficult decision back in I think August of 2001 when there was this call for Federal funding for stem cell research. Before that, there had been none, or none on embryonic stem cell, let me say. There had been some research on adults in bone marrow and cord blood and things like that, and I am sure Dr. Bartlett has talked about that.

But the President has said, look, we will allow embryonic stem cell funding by the John Q. Public taxpayer on these existing stem cell lines that had been indeed obtained from a living human embryo, little life in their earliest forms, that were obtained from these fertility clinics that were considered extra or throwaway or whatever. So the President, I forget the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of research that the Federal Government has funded through the National Institutes of Health and other agencies, but it is substantial, but he did not want to fund any more research on new destruction of life.

So that is where we have been for these last few years, until Ms. DeGette and Mr. Castle in the House passed their bill that would allow the use of the little embryos from the fertility clinics.

So I want to commend Dr. Bartlett, because what he says is that maybe it is true, maybe it is true that the embryonic stem cell in its earliest form has more potential than the adult stem cells. The adult stem cells are multipotent, but not pluripotent, and certainly not totipotent. So what Dr. Bartlett has done in his bill is say, look, there are other ways.

Madam Speaker, there is a doctor at Wake Forest University and just recently he did some research and reported in a very respected medical journal of being able to obtain cells from amniotic fluid as early as 10 to 12 weeks of a pregnancy.

Now, that is not a true embryonic cell, but it is getting pretty darn close to it. It is getting darn close to it. I would be very interested in hearing what Dr. Bartlett says about if you compare the potential of those cells in amniotic fluid that you can obtain when a woman, let's say for genetic diagnosis she is 10 to 12 weeks pregnant, she is over the age of 35, she has concerned about the increased risk of Down Syndrome, and she wants some assurance that that baby, her baby, doesn't have Down Syndrome. So that is why the amniotic fluid is obtained, to get some of those cells to know the exact genetic makeup of that child.

But there are lots of extra cells that could be then used with the patient's consent without harming anything, certainly without destruction of any living embryo.

So this is why I as kind of a practical-minded former OB-GYN physician, who has not researched, who never published a paper, who didn't work at one of the great medical centers in this country, but I did go to a wonderful medical school, the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta, and I did my residency there in obstetrics and gynecology, and then went out and practiced for 26 years and delivered a lot of babies, and I feel I know of what I speak.

But what I want to do, and the purpose of me being here tonight and sharing this time with Dr. Bartlett, is to say we don't have to fight about this. We got lots of things we can fight about.

We are fighting about the conduct of the war right now. We have people in this body that say it was the wrong thing, and then other people say, no, no, it wasn't the wrong thing, but the thing is wrong, and they are arguing about how we have conducted that. We will have and are having a fair debate and difference of opinion.

But this is one that, because of what is in the Bartlett bill, H.R. 322, we don't really have to fight about it. We don't have to get ugly about it. And most importantly, we don't have to destroy any human life in getting these nearly totally potential, almost embryonic stem cells.

Of course, Dr. Bartlett will want to discuss further, I think, that as part of his bill there are techniques that you actually can obtain an embryonic stem cell without destroying the embryo, by doing a biopsy technique.

So that is why I strongly support his bill. We all, everybody in this House and in the other Chamber, the other body, our heart goes out to the Michael J. Foxes of the world, the Christopher Reeves of the world and the folks that are not famous that may be members of our own family. I have heard my colleagues come down and speak in the well compellingly about members of their own family. Our esteemed colleague from Rhode Island, a wonderful Member of this body, who, as a paraplegic, when he talks, people listen, obviously, on both sides of the aisle.

So we want help. We want help ASAP. But I don't think we have to divide our country, we don't have to divide ourselves, we don't have to destroy any human life.

As I kind of sum up and close and turn it back over to the real expert, I just want to say, Madam Speaker, that it is suggested there are extra and there are so many, 400,000 or whatever, just sitting around waiting to be utilized for their embryonic cells and they are going to be thrown away. It is really not true, and we all know that.

We all know that many of the Snowflake Babies have been up here in Washington, in some instances twins that were adopted as embryos and implanted into a mom who couldn't have a baby before that, and in some instances had more than one and had two. I have held them in my arms. We call them the Snowflake Babies, but they are beautiful little toddlers for a lot of infertile couples. So there are no extra babies. There are no throwaways.

With that, I yield back to my colleague. I appreciate him giving me a little time to join him and say hoorah for the work he is doing on H.R. 322.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recall the memory of three selfless and courageous Georgians, who tragically were killed in an accident last month while performing missionary work in rural Honduras.

Perry Goad and Ric Mason of Cartersville and Martha Fuller of Newnan were doing God's work on a church mission in the tiny village of Mal Pais. Together with a group of volunteers from several Georgia churches, they were working to set up running water, connect electricity, pave roads and improve life for the families living in Agalta Valley. It was during this effort that the group's truck rolled over on an undeveloped stretch of road, killing Perry, Ric and Martha.

Madam Speaker, these are three outstanding citizens who eagerly dedicated their time, their effort, their love and spirit to helping those in need. They were not content to simply sit in church and learn about the problems facing our world. They made an effort to go out and to fix these problems. And indeed, our community has truly lost three guiding lights.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in remembering the righteous lives of Perry Goad, Ric Mason and Martha Fuller and in offering prayers of healing to the other volunteers who were injured in the accident.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for recognizing me, and I have a longer speech that I want to submit for the Record. I think my staff must have been looking over the ranking member's shoulder when they wrote it. He has already said those nice things about our good friend, Charlie Norwood.

I was touched, though, in the letter that he received and read, the phrases ``hogwash'' and an ``old country dentist.'' I was sitting here thinking, I can see Charlie saying those things on this floor. That is the way he was and that is the way we remember him. He wasn't an old country dentist, let me assure you. He was a prosperous dentist in Augusta, Georgia, a population of 130,000, the home of the Masters; but that was Charlie.

Let me join Joe Barton, the ranking member, in thanking Chairman Dingell. I mentioned this bill to the chairman last week, and he looked at me and said, Doc, and he had a little mist of tear in his eye, he said, Don't worry about this; we are going to do this. And I knew then that the chairman and Representative Inslee and others were fully supportive of what Charlie was trying to do.

If he was thinking just of himself, Mr. Speaker, this bill probably would say the Living Lung Organ Donation Act, which also would be possible; but that wasn't Charlie. He was thinking about those 70,000 other people who are waiting for a kidney.

Charlie himself had to wait a long time to get that lung. Too long, we think. I don't know if it would have saved his life if he would have had an opportunity for a paired living lung donor, but he was thinking of others who were suffering, and as others have said, to bring a commonsense solution to problem solving in a bipartisan way. They described Charlie as a dog that has got ahold of a bone and won't let it go. Well, we can say to Charlie today, as part of our legacy to him, that he has succeeded.

Mr. Speaker, let's support this bill as a legacy and tribute to the great Member, Charlie Norwood

Mr. Speaker, this legislation honors a dear friend and former colleague in this body, the late Congressman Charlie Norwood. Charlie worked tirelessly as an advocate for patients across our Nation, and this bill is a fitting tribute to the tremendous impact he's made on healthcare in America.

Mr. Speaker, in this country, there are more than 74,000 men, women and children on the waiting list for a kidney transplant. Unfortunately, if the current trend of kidney transplants continues, only about half of these candidates will ever receive a life-saving transplant. Tragically, in 2004, nearly 4,000 listed patients died while awaiting a kidney.

One way for individuals to avoid the kidney transplant waiting list all together is to find a living donor, like a friend or family member who is willing to selflessly donate a kidney to save a loved one. The limitation on this compassion is that only compatible matches can donate kidneys; if your friends and family are not a match, they can't be your donor.

But those of us who knew Charlie know that he was an excellent problem solver, always turning challenges into opportunities. With the limited donor options individuals face within their community of family and friends, patient advocates and healthcare providers have pushed for living organ donors. Charlie was convinced of the unlimited potential that could be realized when the pool of living donors would be expanded beyond one's immediate family and friends. In fact, there have been success stories of hospitals doing just this--finding pairs of living kidney donors who aren't matches for their own loved ones, but are matches for someone else's loved one.

Unfortunately, due to conflicting interpretations of the National Organ Transplant Act, hospitals across the country are hesitant to make this type of procedure a rule--and this where the Charlie Norwood Living Kidney Organ Donation Act will create miracles.

H.R. 710 would clarify in statute that this type of paired living kidney donation would be allowed under Federal law. This will alleviate the concerns of hospitals and healthcare providers that want to give all kidney patients the hope that transplants represent but ambiguity in law currently prevents.

Mr. Speaker this is a win-win situation. More patients would benefit from a kidney transplant, thereby reducing the number of individuals on the waiting list. In turn, more Americans--both on the waiting list and off--will have that miraculous second chance at life.

Mr. Speaker, passing this legislation will be a lasting tribute to Charlie Norwood's selfless efforts to help those in need. While we all wish our friend's lung transplant had saved his life, we can honor him by giving Americans across our Nation greater access to the potential miracle of an organ donation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise for the second time during this 36-hour marathon to strongly oppose this, I almost want to say, meaningless resolution, Mr. Speaker. But make no mistake about it, this is not a meaningless resolution. The consequences of failure in Iraq are drastic, and let me just read to you what some of those are.

Number one, collapse of a democratic Iraqi government, likely, very likely leading to mass killings and genocide in the nation.

Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would use this defeat to boost recruitment. They would use Iraq as a staging ground for deadly attacks paid for with Iraqi oil revenue.

Iran and Syria would exert tremendous influence over the region. You think they are bad actors now, you just wait until this scenario plays out. And, indeed, and they have said that Israel would be pushed into the sea.

Mr. Speaker, the real Democratic plan is coming later. And if you don't believe me, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle just read a recent article this week in Roll Call. I am not going to stand up here and read it to the Members. You can read it.

But the Progressive Caucus of the House Democratic Conference, the Out of Iraq Caucus of the House Democratic Conference, led by Ms. Woolsey and Ms. Waters, basically say that this is just the first step. They say that in this op ed article. This resolution is not meaningless. It is the first step, my colleagues, toward cutting off funding for the troops and pulling the rug out from under them.

What does this say then to our brave fighting men and women who are trying to defend this country? We have heard over and over again from the other side that, ``Look, we can't afford this war anymore. It is costing too much in lives and money. We are making too big a commitment there, and we need to bring our troops home because some other conflict may break out in this world.''

Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues. What is more important than the current war? What indeed are we going to save our troops for? Working the rope lines at 4th of July parades, helping senior citizens cross the street? We have got to stop this and stop it now.

And listen to what the terrorists themselves say about the message that that would send. And this is a quote, Mr. Speaker, from bin Laden himself: ``Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.''

His top deputy, bin Laden's deputy Zawahiri, says, ``The Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.''

Make no mistake about this. What we are doing with this resolution is not a salute to GI Joe, it is a capitulation to Jihadist Joe.

Mr. Speaker, Charlie Norwood was a very successful dentist in my hometown of Augusta, Georgia. I didn't know Charlie at that time because I had long since moved away.

But as a practicing physician in Marietta, Georgia, as an OB/GYN, several years ago I went to the annual meeting of the Georgia OB/GYN Society to hear Dr. Charlie Norwood talk about the Patients' Bill of Rights. Physicians across Georgia and across this country were concerned with managed care and HMOs and liability and that sort of thing.

And, Mr. Speaker, when I heard Dr. Norwood speak to my colleagues, physicians about this issue, and them, in turn, including myself, give him a standing ovation, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I never did tell Charlie this, but that was an inspiration to me to want to some day have the opportunity, and thank God that I did, to follow in that walk that he walked.

What a great Member of this body and what a fierce competitor and a fair competitor, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the distinguished John Lewis, knows well, Charlie would fight for something he believed in but in a very respectful way. And he thought about others before himself.

An example, Mr. Speaker, is that just in this last election cycle, when Charlie was suffering so much, as Representative Deal has just mentioned, he didn't think about himself. He won his reelection with 67 percent of the vote. And it wasn't that he couldn't campaign because of his illness. He was working all that time for another colleague in a very competitive district. He was essentially running that other campaign. That is the kind of guy Charlie Norwood was, and the kind of fellow that we will all remember here on both sides of the aisle in this great House of Representatives.

He was a friend, he was a colleague. He was a fighter. He was a fighter for patients' rights. He was a fighter for students, as his work on the Education and Workforce Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, he is somebody that we can all emulate.

And I just want to say to his wife Gloria, to his two sons, Carlton and Charles, Jr., and to the four grandchildren and to the Norwood family, we are praying for you. We want to uplift you. We will be with you tomorrow, but we know, as you do, that Charlie is in heaven right now, and God has accepted him in open arms and saying, well done, my good and faithful servant.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our troops who are faithfully serving our Nation in harm's way. Therefore, I must oppose this resolution brought to the floor by the Democrats because it offers no plan, no strategy, and no hope for victory. In fact, it does nothing but risk demoralizing our troops.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that Republicans and Democrats alike recognize mistakes have been made in Iraq and neither side of the aisle is happy with where we are today. But rather than offering solutions to move us forward or engage in a productive debate on alternative strategies, the Democrats have decided to propose what certainly seems to be a politically motivated resolution.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, what are we really accomplishing with this resolution? The answer is nothing. With this shameless stunt, the Democrats are locking down this body for 36 hours maybe in hopes of scoring political points by criticizing the President. But by using our troops as pawns in an attempt to gain political leverage, this resolution serves only to weaken troop morale while giving hope and comfort to the enemy.

In doing so, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have done nothing to end the war or help our troops achieve victory.

Mr. Speaker, seeing as the Democrats have hijacked the Floor all week to debate this resolution, surely they must have an alternative to the President's plan. I will bet the American people are as eager as I am to hear about this new plan for success, their plan. Certainly my constituents in the Eleventh District of Georgia are waiting.

So what is their magic alternative? Mr. Speaker, here it is. It is the same on both sides. They don't have one. We have heard from members of the Democratic team threaten to cut funding, to cap troop levels or to compel a forced withdrawal. But where are those ideas in this resolution? I have read through its two brief paragraphs and I can assure you they aren't to be found.

Sadly, the Democrats lack the political will to fully engage in a meaningful debate on Iraq policy. They have refused to allow a vote on funding for the war which would give Members an opportunity to show support for our troops with actions and not empty words.

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership is afraid to ask their Members to put their money where their mouths are and either vote yes or no to fund our troops and the mission. Isn't this why they have denied Republicans an opportunity to offer an alternative bill, or even a motion to recommit? They were for that last Thursday,

before being against it tonight. Sound familiar?

Apparently, Mr. Speaker, calls for funding cuts and troop withdrawals are good enough for newspaper headlines, but they are not good enough for votes on this House floor. Let me remind my colleagues that sound bites for the nightly news will do nothing to win this war against terror.

Mr. Speaker, America has a long tradition of standing on the right side of this fight for freedom, even when it is a difficult stand to make, and the right course of action today is to stand by the Iraqi people until their government, their police and military can ensure the security of their own nation.

As in any war, there have been setbacks in Iraq. But as in past wars, we will move forward with victory as our goal. This Democratic resolution is a thinly veiled attempt to sound the retreat. That amounts to an unacceptable act of playing politics with our national security.

Mr. Speaker, as you have heard over the past 2 days, this is a serious debate, with very serious ramifications. It is not simply a simple resolution as the Democrats would like to characterize it. But on one hand, we have a shot at victory. We have an opportunity to push back the cause of radical terrorism. On the other hand, we have a two paragraph, nonbinding resolution that is essentially a vote of no confidence in the commander in chief.

This is not the time for our majority party to cave in to their anti- war supporters of the liberal left and play politics with the security of the United States. This is a time for bold leadership and bold plans. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, neither is on display here today.

I hope for the sake of the American people, our troops and freedom- loving nations around this world, that this resolution's flimsy words are not taken as a substitute for America's long tradition and commitment to achieving victory.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to point out to my colleagues this poster on my left. These brave soldiers, Paul Saylor from Breman, Georgia; Justin Johnson from Rome, Georgia; Lieutenant Tyler Brown, a Georgia Tech graduate, the president of the student body; and Hayes Clayton, III, from Marietta, Georgia, all died for their country.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot turn our backs on them. We cannot say to their moms and dads, their brothers and sisters, their wives and their children, that we supported sending them into harm's way and they gave their lives for their country, and now we are saying it was for naught, it was for nothing, it was not worth it. We can't let that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me in voting down this meaningless resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our troops, who are faithfully serving our Nation in harm's way. Therefore, I must oppose this resolution brought to the floor by the Democrats because it offers no plan, no strategy, and no hope for victory. In fact, it does nothing but risk demoralizing our troops.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that Republicans and Democrats alike recognize mistakes have been made in Iraq, and neither side of the aisle is happy with where we are today. But rather than offering solutions to move us forward, or engaging in a productive debate on alternative strategies, the Democrats have decided to propose what certainly seems to be a politically motivated non-binding resolution.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, what are we really accomplishing with this resolution? The answer is nothing. The Democrats are locking down this body for 36 hours--maybe in hopes of scoring political points by criticizing the President. But by using, our troops as pawns in an attempt to gain political leverage, this resolution serves only to weaken troop morale, while giving hope and comfort to the enemy.

And in doing so, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have done nothing to end the war or to help our troops achieve victory.

Mr. Speaker, since the Democrats have hijacked the floor all week to debate this resolution, surely they must have an alternative to the President's plan. I'll bet the American people are as eager as I am to hear about this new plan for success. Certainly my constituents in the 11th District of Georgia are.

So what is their magic alternative? As far as I can tell, Mr. Speaker, they don't have one.

We've heard members of the Democrat team threaten to cut funding, cap troop levels, or compel a forced withdrawal. But where are those ideas in this resolution? I've read through its two brief paragraphs, and I can assure you--they aren't to be found.

Sadly, the Democrats lack the political will to fully engage in a meaningful debate on Iraq policy. They've refused to allow a vote on funding for the war, which would give Members an opportunity to show support for our troops with actions, not empty words.

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leadership is afraid to ask their members to put their money where their mouths are and vote ``yes'' or ``no'' to fund our troops and their mission.

Isn't this why they've denied Republicans an opportunity to offer an alternate bill, or even a motion to recommit with instructions?

They were for that last Thursday before now being against it. Sound familiar?

Apparently, Mr. Speaker, calls for funding cuts and troop withdrawal are good enough for newspaper headlines, but not for votes on the House floor. Let me remind my colleagues that sound bytes for the nightly news will do nothing to win this war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation.

We are about to begin 3 days of debate over the Democrats' nonbinding resolution, 3 days of debate over a resolution that is nothing more than a political statement against our President.

Considering that last month Democrats rammed six bills through this House in a mere 100 hours, I would say we have ample time this week to also debate a Republican alternative to this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, last week one of the Democratic Members in this body repeatedly referred to us as the ``Republic Party.'' I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that that Member was necessarily trying to pay us a compliment. But indeed he did, because this is a Republic, and we speak on behalf of 650,000 constituents.

But the Democrats have taken that away from us, Mr. Speaker. The Democratic leadership has shown us time and time again their pledge of an open and inclusive Congress amounts to nothing more than tired campaign rhetoric. So over and over the next 3 days, you will hear many Republican opinions and ideas, but you will see no Republican legislation.

Perhaps the Democratic leadership is afraid that a Republican alternative, like the bill introduced by a true American war hero, Sam Johnson of Texas, would force the Members to finally put their money where their mouths are and vote ``yes'' or ``no'' to cut funding for the troops. But instead, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats prefer to debate nonbinding resolutions that criticize the President's plan without offering any alternative or strategy for victory.

Mr. Speaker, we should be using the next 3 days to debate substantive legislation, not political attacks. This nonbinding resolution may have been crafted with the 2008 election in mind, but I implore my colleagues to look far beyond 2008 to the future of our Nation and this global war on terror. Don't play politics with the security of the United States of America. Don't play politics with possibly our last best chance to secure freedom for the Iraqi people on the greater stability in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have sometimes accused Republicans in this Congress of being ``yes men'' for the President. Well, I believe the Democrats are being ``no men'' for the President, blindly saying no to any plan he proposes, without considering the merits or what is best for the security of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely unbelievable that the Democrats are proposing 3 days of debate on an issue as critically important as Iraq without any Republican input or alternative. The manner in which this debate will be carried out is an affront to the American people and to our troops. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to this shameful rule.

I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.

Mr. Speaker, in response to our articulate friend from the State of New York, in regard to his comment, we have given war a chance. I would just say to him, you have. We have given war a chance, and we have not given victory a chance. This is not the time to pull the rug out from under those who have given their lives for their country.