Nathan Deal

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey). (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, to conclude the debate, I would yield the remaining time to Dr. Weldon from Florida.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I rise in support of this legislation, which will allow funding for research that is already showing some real promise and, at the same time, avoids the moral and ethical perils of research involving the destruction of human embryos. Pluripotent cells have the ability to grow into any cell in the body. Like other stem cells, pluripotent cells are used in the treatment of debilitating conditions where the replacement of damaged or malfunctioning cells is needed. Using adult stem cells drawn from bone marrow and umbilical cord blood system cells, scientists have discovered new treatments for scores of diseases and conditions such as Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. Thousands of people have already benefited from these advances; and with continued research, thousands more stand to benefit in the near future. The success of these treatments shows the merit of adult stem cell research and demonstrates the need for further research. Last year Congress took action in this area by passing the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. As a cosponsor of that legislation, it was a bill which expanded the number of stem cell options available to Americans suffering from life-threatening diseases. Today's legislation will allow us to take another step forward and open up even more avenues for promising research for individuals and families. The concerns with embryonic stem cell research are real and deeply held by many Americans. But Americans are not the only ones who have reservations about moving forward with research that destroys human embryos. In fact, many nations currently refuse to support embryonic stem cell research of any kind. And last year the United Nations adopted a resolution declaring a prohibition on ``all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life.'' Voting along with the United States on this strong declaration were 84 nations, including Germany, Austria, Australia, Italy, and Portugal. The legislation before us today upholds these principles and will help to further establish our Nation's leadership in ethical and effective scientific research. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt). (Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Sterns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of this legislation. As a cosponsor of the House equivalent of this Senate bill to prohibit fetus farming, I believe it is something that we need to take action on. What is fetus farming? Simply put, it is the creation and development of a human fetus for the purposes of later killing it for research or for harvesting its organs. While advances in scientific research have led to some new and exciting treatments that have enlarged and enhanced the quality and length of human life, we must not lose sight as to what we are trying to accomplish. Scientific advancement should aim to affirm and to improve human life. Unfortunately, some have begun to pursue scientific research for its own benefit or for profit, without respect for human life. Science without respect for human life is degrading to us all and reflects a hollow and deceptive philosophy, a philosophy that we as a people should never condone. In the grisly process of fetus farming, a woman might become pregnant with the sole intention of selling the tissue of her unborn child. An unscrupulous individual could pay a young, underprivileged woman, for example, to become pregnant so that the fetal tissue could be harvested. Even more appalling and disturbing, human embryos could be harvested for their tissue after developing in the womb of a nonhuman animal. While some of these scenarios may seem like something out of the realm of fantasy, fetus farming is an emerging possibility in our world. As I stand here today, some scientists are engaged in animal research that uses cloned embryos, implanted and grown in the womb before being aborted so that the tissue could be harvested. Sometimes, cloned animal fetuses are allowed to develop almost to the newborn stage before being aborted and used to test new therapies. We now know that human cloning is not only a possibility but is already happening. Many of my colleagues may have heard or read about a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer, also known as therapeutic cloning, in which a cloned human embryo is created and then destroyed for the purposes of harvesting its cells. It is only one small step further to begin creating and developing human fetuses for the purposes of research or for harvesting the unborn child's organs. Just because scientists have the knowledge to do it, the technology to do it, and some may even have a financial motive or other incentive to do it, does not make it right. Congress should take this proactive step to eliminate fetus farming. Human life should never be made into a commodity, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 3504.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to clear up several misconceptions, I think, that have occurred here. First of all is, we are concerned in my State and some of the ones who spoke about the continuation of section 5, which requires preclearance. This bill, as all bills, have certain findings of fact, and I want to address some of those findings of fact. The first one is based on the fact that there were hundreds of objections interposed as one of the conclusions that justifies the extension. The American Enterprise Institute says that the raw numbers on objections are insufficient to measure support for reauthorization. They give the statistics, and the statistics are that from 1982 to 2005, out of the 105,000-plus objections, 0.7 percent received objections in the covered States. From 1996 to 2005, out of 54,000- plus, only 0.15 percent drew objections. The second finding is that the number of requests for declaratory judgments justifies extension. That same study concludes that those are so small as to be insignificant. The third finding is that of continued filing of section 2 cases originating in covered jurisdictions. The University of Michigan Law School report shows that since 1982 more lawsuits filed under section 2 ending with the determination of liability have occurred in noncovered jurisdictions than in covered ones; and the example being, in 1990 more court findings of section 2 violations occurred in New York or Pennsylvania than in South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this is something that if we are going to make findings of fact they ought to be true findings of fact, and just because the bill says they are the facts does not necessarily make them so. We are proud in our State and we have worked across party lines and across racial lines; and the latest study that is cited in one of the reports is from the 2000 voter year in Georgia. In Georgia, 66.3 percent of eligible blacks were registered to vote. Only 59.3 percent whites were registered to vote, a 7 percent plus on those who are black. On voter turnout in Georgia in that election cycle, 51.6 percent of black voters voted; only 48.3 percent of white voters voted. So we have made substantial progress. The right of extension of section 5 for preclearance that requires that you get Justice Department approval just to annex a piece of property into a municipality, just to move a voting precinct from one place to another place, requires preclearance. I would suggest that this is not appropriate.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, today, some 41 years after the first Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress, the facts that relate to infringements on voting have substantially changed. And here we are talking in this amendment about a portion of the Voting Rights Act that was deemed to be temporary and was deemed to be remedial in nature. The bill we are asked to pass today, however, without this amendment relies on facts that are over 40 years old, and the Norwood amendment seeks to overturn those facts and base this legislation on facts that exist today, in fact, the three most recent Presidential elections rather than the election of Lyndon Johnson. Now, the opponents of the Norwood amendment argue that it might render the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional to do that. Doesn't that give you some pause, some concern? If you can't justify this legislation on the facts of 2006, if you can't base it on the last three Presidential elections and those facts will make your act unconstitutional, that alone ought to cause you to vote against it. This is here because the 15th amendment has given jurisdiction to Congress to do certain things, and we act on those facts. But the facts are still the facts even though this bill may attempt to say they are something different. Just because some of our Members prefer to linger in the sins of the past, it is our responsibility to legislate on the facts of the present, and those facts do not justify an extension of section 5

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. No, I don't have time to yield.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Linder), who is the sponsor of the House version of this same bill that we are now considering from the Senate.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my other Georgia colleague, Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 655, legislation to make needed improvements to the CDC Foundation. The CDC Foundation is a private, nonprofit foundation established by Congress in 1992 to help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fulfill its mission on protecting health and promoting safety. It is located in my State of Georgia. The CDC Foundation is a unique private-public partnership that supports the important work of the CDC both here in the United States and around the world. When public health emergencies strike, the CDC Foundation harnesses the know-how of the private sector to fill the gaps and get around government red tape, helping to keep Americans safe from harm. To fulfill its mission, the CDC Foundation relies heavily on the ingenuity and resources of private donations. In the 11 years since its incorporation, the CDC Foundation has raised more than $100 million in private donations from individuals, corporate partners, and other foundations. With the relatively small Federal investment of half a million dollars per year for operating expenses, the CDC Foundation has been able to leverage over $15 million per year in private funds over the last 5 years. This represents an amazing 30-to-1 return on the Federal investment. These funds allow the foundation to manage over 100 programs that work directly with the CDC and the United States in over 30 countries around the world. The CDC Foundation helps to bring an international focus to the work of the CDC that is having a direct impact on the health of U.S. citizens here at home. When deadly infections like SARS or bird flu arise in distant parts of the world, the world-renowned expertise of CDC experts can play an important role in disease monitoring and prevention. Effective intervention at the source can stop these diseases in their tracks, preventing them from ever reaching our soil. With help from the CDC Foundation, experts at the CDC train local public health officials from around the world, offering valuable resources and expertise to fight deadly infections and save lives. But the CDC Foundation doesn't just protect Americans by supporting overseas activities. Here in the United States the Foundation gives CDC needed flexibility during public health emergencies. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina last year, for example, the lack of computers and Internet access was hampering the CDC's work in detecting and containing potential disease outbreaks among Houston-area hurricane evacuees. Thanks to the ready availability of CDC Foundation funds, these CDC teams were able to cut through the red tape and purchase the equipment they needed to get the job done. Furthermore, the CDC Foundation is served by an outstanding internationally renowned board of directors that draws its members from the corporate, philanthropic, educational and public health sectors. These leaders have served ably in bringing about both accountability and flexibility to this unique public-private partnership. And I would urge the support of this legislation today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 655) to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as amended.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation today, as has already been stated, has already received strong bipartisan support as it unanimously passed the Senate, and likewise, passed the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House. The bill makes several changes to the existing CDC Foundation statute. For example, it allows greater sharing of resources such as private office space and facilities from the CDC to the Foundation. It also extends the lengths of fellowships granted by the Foundation beyond the current limit of 2 years. The bill will allow the director of the CDC to shift more of her discretionary funding to cover the administrative and operating cost of the foundation. Like any nonprofit or charitable foundation, the CDC Foundation must cover its administrative costs out of its own funds. This legislation will allow the CDC director to provide the Foundation between $500,000 per year up to the $1.25 million per year for operating expenses, depending on need. Finally, the bill provides additional accountability for Federal resources by requiring a report of the Foundation's activities to be submitted to Congress each year. With these improvements contained in this legislation, I am confident that the CDC Foundation will be able to attract additional significant private funds and expand its role in assisting the CDC. The continuing partnership between the Foundation and the Federal Government is helping the CDC to have a positive impact on people's health in the United States and around the world. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have one final speaker. I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

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

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. DEAL of Georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 426) recognizing the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the passage of the Food and Drugs Act for the important service it provides the Nation, as amended.