Peter Deutsch

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the chamber today during rollcall vote No. 336 and 337. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 336 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 337.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the lifetime achievements of one of South Florida's most active and charitable volunteers. Shirley Heller, who passed away on July 16, 2001 at the age of 72, was an inspiring leader who left a legacy of commitment and devotion for the South Florida community. Shirley Heller grew up on the north side of Chicago. She attended the National College of Education and, after receiving her degree, became a teacher who was greatly loved and admired by her students. Her love for teaching led her to volunteer for the Great Books program in Chicago, which promotes classic pieces of literature. Shirley's love of politics and public service also began during her time in Chicago, where her lifetime of activism can be traced back to the Truman years. Shirley would serve as a national delegate for the Democratic Convention, a duty she would fulfill twice more after moving to Florida. However, Shirley was best known for her dedication to her community. She was an active member of various women's groups, and had the honor of serving as the President of Hadassah for three consecutive terms. She also founded the local B'nai B'rith organization for girls in the greater Chicago area. Shirley was an extremely giving person who always worked for others and not herself. Immediately after moving to Florida in 1979, Shirley became involved in numerous civic and community organizations. Residents at once recognized the value of her enthusiasm for and commitment to her community; characteristics which made her a natural leader. She served as president of the Pembroke Pines Democratic Club, as well as president of the Hollybrook Golf and Tennis Condominium. Mr. Speaker, Shirley Heller was both well-loved and widely respected by all those blessed to have known her, especially her husband and three sons, whom she cherished. She selflessly served her community throughout her life's work. Today, Mr. Speaker, we celebrate Shirley's life, which serves as a wonderful example to all who follow in her footsteps.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, there are two bills before us today, effectively, the Weldon bill and then the Greenwood bill, that I am an original sponsor with. Let us be very, very clear to each other and to the American people. Both of those bills absolutely totally ban human cloning. I am going to say that again so there is no debate on that. They absolutely, totally ban human cloning. There is unanimity, I think, in this Congress, in the American public, about that. There are some extreme, extreme groups that are distinct minorities, but I do not believe there will be one Member who will stand up here and say we should do it. We should not do it, for both ethical and practical reasons. Before Dolly the Sheep was created, and I am not going to talk about all the ethical reasons. I will talk for a second about the practical reasons. And there are very serious ethical reasons against it. But before Dolly the Sheep was created, 270 sheep died; and Dolly is severely handicapped. I do not think any of us can even contemplate that in terms of the human condition. Let us talk about what this debate is really about. It is not about human cloning. We are all against human cloning. What it is about is the Weldon bill further bans somatic cell nuclear transfer. I am going to say that term again, because that is a term that all the Members who are going to vote in this Chamber and, in fact, in a sense all of the American people at some point are going to have to understand that term. I think all of my colleagues now understand the term embryonic stem cells, and I think the vast majority of Americans understand the term embryonic stem cells. In fact the majority of Members, in fact, the debate about stem cell research is over. A majority of this Congress, a majority of the other body, both support embryonic stem cell research, and a vast majority of the American people across polling data, 75, 80 percent consistently of the American people, support embryonic stem cell research. They do it and that breaks up into every sub-group of our population. In terms of Catholics, the number is about 75-80 percent. People who identify themselves as Evangelical Christians, 75-80 percent support embryonic stem cell research. But what this Weldon bill tries to ban is somatic cell nuclear transfer. Now, I really hate doing this to my colleagues and this is really one of the reasons why we ought to defeat this rule today, but I have to do a little bit of layman's science. This is a chart, and I will make it available for Members, that actually shows what somatic cell nuclear transfer does. Most of us understand that by any definition, an embryo is created when an egg and a sperm join with the potentiality of a unique human being. That is not what this procedure is about. I am going to say these things again, because for most of my colleagues they have not heard this before, and this is somewhat of a science lesson. A normal embryo, what we think of as an embryo, is created by an egg and a sperm joining with the potentiality of a unique human being. Mr. Speaker, that is not what this bill attempts to ban. What it bans is somatic cell nuclear transfer. Again, as the chart shows, one takes an egg, an unfertilized egg, an egg, and one then takes out the chromosomes from that egg and then, literally, in the trillions of cells in a body and, in other species, they take it out. Obviously, in the human species, it is the female, of the literally trillions of cells that exist in the human body, they take out one of those cells and take out the 46 chromosomes out of one of those cells and then put it into an egg. At that point, why are they doing that? Let us talk about that a little bit. This is part and parcel, this debate really is totally intertwined. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) said this is not about stem cell research. It is about stem cell research because, let us talk about what is going on. Stem cell research, one of the reasons why the American people have effectively said they want embryonic stem cell research is because they understand the debate. They understand the debate at several levels. At the first level they understand that in in vitro fertilization embryos are created that literally get thrown away. We have a choice. We can use those for research that literally has the ability to cure the most horrific diseases humankind has ever seen, whether that is paralysis, whether that is Alzheimer's, or any number of diseases.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentlewoman 100 percent, which is one of the reasons to defeat this rule. In my 9 years in this Chamber, this is the least informed collectively that the 435 Members of this body have ever been on any issue, and in many ways, it is as important as any issue we face.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, why is this about stem cell research? As I said, what the American people have said, and I was talking about in vitro fertilization, that we have the ability to take these embryos and do research on them to literally cure disease, and the research is there. This past week, stem cells were inserted into a primate's spine and a primate that previously had been unable to move was able to move. Just today, in today's Wall Street Journal, there is a report on research of stem cells actually being able to create insulin cells. It is in today's Wall Street Journal. This stuff is happening. Diseases that had existed in the past, polio, other diseases have been cured. We are getting there. We literally can. If we talk to the patients' groups, if we listen to what Nancy Reagan is saying, if we listen to the families, there are literally tens of millions. I will move this next chart over here just to show my colleagues. This is the number of people in America that we are talking about. We are not talking about millions, we are talking about tens of millions of people who are personally affected by these diseases, and if we put their families in, we are talking about literally maybe 100 million people in this country who are affected by these diseases. Now again, let us talk specifically about: how does this intertwine with stem cell research? It is very similar to the issue of organ transplants. If we put an organ into someone's body, it will be rejected. There are antirejection drugs which scientifically do not apply to stem cells. The best way to be able to actually maybe get a therapeutic use out of this research, actually cure cancer, cure Parkinson's, cure Alzheimer's, cure juvenile diabetes, the actual way to do that is to develop research to develop a therapy to actually put the stem cells into the body, and that is exactly what is being done here. Cells from a person's body are being used, through somatic cell nuclear transfer, to be able to create the potentiality of curing these horrific diseases. Calling that an embryo does not make it an embryo. It is not an embryo. It is not creating life by any definition of creating life. It is the potentiality to continue life. I would say it in several ways. If someone, by reason of their theology, their personal belief system, does not allow them to do that, then I say let them choose not to do that. But for the tens of millions of patients, 100 million family members, do not stop them from doing it, number one. This bill goes to an extreme and even says that we cannot import drugs for use in this country. I am sure there is not a Member in this chamber who could look a family member in the eye of one of those tens of millions of Americans when that drug is created in England or France or Ireland or wherever and say, you cannot have that drug. I know there is not a Member that could do it, and we should not do it today.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I am going to use this time really to respond to some of the statements that my colleagues have made in support of the Weldon bill as recently as the last speaker. Let me again really focus this debate so Members know exactly what they are voting on. It has been presented that the Weldon bill does not stop stem cell research. Well, I do not believe that is true, and I think the facts bear out that that is not true. This issue is intricately intertwined with stem cell research, and Members need to understand that is what we are voting on. Because just like organ transplants, the organs that can be transplanted have no use if the body is going to reject them. And what I want each of us as Members to think about, and I think my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), did this as well as I have heard anyone ever do on this floor, think about some of the most awful stories of the human condition, of real people, and each of us have heard these stories, whether on a personal basis or whether as a Member of Congress. I have the numbers here: 24 million people with diabetes, 15 million with cancer, 6 million with Alzheimer's, 1 million people with Parkinson's. Those are obviously large numbers. But I ask each of my colleagues to think of one person, maybe a grandmother or a grandfather, a father, a mother, a friend who had one of these diseases. And what we would be doing today if we passed the Weldon bill would be taking away their hope of stopping their pain and their suffering. That is the choice in front of us. That truly is the choice in front of us. We do not have that cure yet. But we all know, all of us have heard and read the specifics of where the research is, and it is there. It might not be there tomorrow, but it is there. We would stop all this research. All of it. All of it. Not Federal funding, but all of it. Private funding, Federal funding. Criminalize it, and all of this research would stop under the Weldon bill. And let us kind of weigh what we have here. Let us weigh what we have. We have the potentiality in terms of the human condition that I think is as monumental as anything we can possibly contemplate. Again, we can talk about tens of millions and hundreds of millions, but I ask each of my colleagues to focus on one, someone who they know. But then what are we weighing that against? We are weighing that against stopping somatic cell nuclear transfer. That is what it is, somatic cell nuclear transfer. It is not an embryo. It is not the creation of life. There are issues, and I think very serious ethical, moral issues, about using embryos for stem cell research, and we can talk about them. And I think we take this issue seriously. I think all Members take it seriously. We do not take it lightly at all. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), I think, spoke as well as I have ever heard anyone speak about this on this floor, that by any concept of what we have talked about, a sperm and an egg joining for the potentiality of the creation of a unique human being. That is not what somatic cell nuclear transfer is about. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is the taking an egg that is not fertilized, taking out the 23 chromosomes and literally, literally taking one of the several trillion, several trillion cells in a body, whether it is the gentleman from Pennsylvania's cheek cell, one of the several trillion, or the cell on his skin or another cell, a cell of several trillion in a person's body, taking that one cell and taking out the 46 chromosomes and putting it in this egg. And why are we doing it? Again, there is not a Member in this Chamber that wants to allow it to be done for the potentiality of creating a human being. Absolutely not. Illegal under both bills. But what we do want is the potentiality of literally saving tens of millions of lives with that. That reality is there. And if we pass the Weldon bill, we prevent that. We will not prevent it in some other countries, but what we do, as amazing as it sounds, is we prevent that research from coming into the United States. Which again, as I said previously, I cannot conceive that one of my colleagues in this Chamber would ever have the ability to look a family member or any person, for that matter, in the eye, a quadriplegic, someone suffering from Parkinson's, and say they could not take the benefit of the research. Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of the rule.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, everyone in this Chamber agrees, and we have been here for about an hour and three-quarters, everyone in this Chamber agrees that we should ban human cloning, period. Everyone. There is consensus here. Mr. Speaker, both pieces of legislation do that, but there is a divergence. The Weldon bill goes further to ban the somatic cell nuclear transfer. I would like to focus in response to what has been going on in the debate. There is no longer a debate about stem cell research. This Congress collectively, both the House and the other body and the American people have made a decision. Whether the President has made his decision or not is irrelevant. The Congress and the American people have made our decision that we want to continue embryonic stem cell research. We collectively, as Americans, understand that issue, and it will continue regardless of what the President decides on this issue. My colleagues know that and understand that. Let us talk about why there is a serious debate about it, though, and why I take it very seriously as well. When you have an egg and a sperm joining and the potentiality is to create a new unique human being, there are ethical issues involved regarding a transcendental event that could occur in the creation of a unique soul. That is what people find troubling and should find troubling, and should think about it and understand it. Yet we understand the other issues and collectively we have made our decision that we are willing, that we want to continue with embryonic stem cell research because of the issues that we have talked about. But let us talk about what somatic nuclear transfer is all about. It is not about that sperm and egg joining together. It is not about the potentiality to create a unique human being. It is not about a transcendental event that could occur. It is not about all those issues that some people correctly have struggled with and have come to conclusions and significant, serious moral-ethical issues. What is going on here? What is going on here is an egg where the DNA is taken out, 23 chromosomes taken out from literally trillions of cells, trillions of cells, not billions, trillions of cells. Within the human body, one cell is taken out and 46 chromosomes are implanted. Not to create life, not to create an embryo, but to continue life, to save life for literally tens of millions of people, for potentially everyone in this Chamber and everyone in the country. None of us know who is going to be stricken by one of these horrific diseases. No one knows who is going to get Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or cancer. It literally could be any of us in this Chamber or anyone watching on C-SPAN. It could be any of us. If we think about that, it could be any of us who have relatives, loved ones, who have these horrific diseases. Yet what this legislation would do would be to stop the research, to take one of those trillions of cells in the body, take out 46 chromosomes, put it in, so that you could survive, so that someone who is a quadriplegic could walk, so that someone who has Alzheimer's. We have heard Nancy Reagan speak directly about the stem cell research, I think a woman who is universally loved everywhere in this country and her husband whom I think is universally loved as well. This chart remains up here. I have put it up here, because the numbers are 24 million. For diabetes, 15 million people, not just numbers; 6 million Alzheimer's, 1 million Parkinson's. People. People. People. Individuals. Again, I ask my colleagues, this should not be a difficult issue. We should reject the bill and approve the substitute.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, if I could just inquire, how would we be going in terms of order of speakers?

Mr. DEUTSCH. And then to the opponent, and then it will revert back and forth?

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I have been attempting to personalize this issue as much as I can. One of the things I would ask my colleagues to do is look at some of the lists of groups that are supporting the Greenwood-Deutsch amendment in opposition to the Weldon bill: the Parkinson's Action Network, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Alliance for Aging, American Infertility Association, American Liver Foundation, International Kidney Cancer Foundation. I mention several of these organizations because as I have said, and I think what we all acknowledge, that the issue of using embryonic stem cell research is over. And why is it over? Because of the 435 Members in this Chamber, we have heard from our friends, from our families, from our neighbors, from our constituents about real people who are suffering real diseases. That suffering is incalculable. None of us would want that to happen to anyone. Yet we know it exists and we feel pain when we talk to people. Many of us experience that pain ourselves. I put up these numbers again to note that the individuals added collectively together add up to tens of millions of Americans and to hundreds of millions of family Members.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds just to respond, both bills absolutely, positively stop human cloning, period. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I only have one speaker remaining. I would inquire of the gentleman from Pennsylvania how many speakers he has remaining.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2-\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that, from my district at least, is a local issue. I represent a district that is 90 miles from the shores of Cuba and people visit under the existing process right now. But one of the things that has been talked about, as recently as my last colleague who spoke, many of my colleagues have visited Cuba and they have met with dissidents and they have stayed in hotels. One of the things they are probably not aware of is that no Cuban is legally allowed to eat and enter a hotel in Cuba. They might have eaten with one of the so-called dissidents, but it was illegal under Cuba law, and the only reason why they could is because they are a Member of Congress. Cuba is treated differently. But there is no other name on the list that people have offered that is 90 miles from our shore, but also has a unique system that Cuba has. People have talked about Castro being in power for a long time. In many ways this dictatorship has been the most controlling in the world. If we look at the process of tourism and what keeps the Castro dictatorship around is, in fact, hard dollars. Passing the Flake amendment would, in fact, enable Castro to continue.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I would take second place to no one in this Chamber in my faith and my belief in God. I would take second place to no one in this Chamber in terms of my personal commitment to supporting faith-based organizations. But I cannot support the bill as presently drafted and specifically focusing on the discrimination aspect of the bill. No one in this Chamber would ask that a Jew serve as a Catholic priest or a Muslim serve as a Christian minister. But what this bill specifically does, and we should face it and we should talk about it and think about the implication, is that the person serving the soup literally with the ladle would be allowed to be only of a certain faith, whatever that faith may be, with Federal funds. That is a very scary concept, I think, for many Americans. I ask my colleagues to sensitize themselves about that. We could talk around that issue. We could talk any way that we want. If that money is coming from my donation as a free will offering, and that institution chooses to do that, they have the ability, but not with Federal funds, not with taxpayer dollars.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who will be greatly missed by all those who knew him. A man who served his country proudly, and a man who displayed immeasurable love for his work, his community, his life, and his family. It brings me great sadness to report that Gerald J. Renuart of Lighthouse Point, Florida, passed away on June 24, 2000, at the age of 63 after a lengthy battle with cancer. Gerald Renuart was born in Coral Gables, Florida. He attended school at the University of Miami where he received a degree in business, and went on to Nova University where he received his Master's Degree. Upon graduation, he began what was to become a very long, meaningful life as a contributor to both his country and community in a variety of ways. A strong believer in the importance of mentoring, Gerald worked with local youth through his participation with the Boy Scouts. As a member of the organization for 25 years, he held the position of Scoutmaster for National and World Jamborees, Roundtable Commissioner, and District Chairman. He was awarded scouting's highest award, the Silver Beaver, for his loyal and dedicated service. Gerald also occupied the role of civil servant for many years. He worked as a Town Manager for Surfside for nine years, and then served as a City Administrator and Executive Assistant to the Mayor of Lighthouse Point for 23 years. In addition, he was past president of the American Society of Public Administrators and the Municipal Finance Officers of America. In recognition of his outstanding public service, Gerald Renuart was honored by then President Jimmy Carter. As a retired Naval Officer, Gerald Renuart will be given full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery on July 20, 2001. These honors serve as an example of the caliber of man he was and will compliment the other accolades received by Mr. Renuart in recognizing him as an admirable and exceptional member of his family, community, and nation. Mr. Speaker, Gerald Renuart was both well-loved and widely respected by all those blessed to have known him. He is survived by his father, Firmin, his two brothers, Michael and Robert, his sister, Claudette Voehringer, his loving wife of 40 years, Maureen, his children, Shirley Dion, Ronald and Daniel, and eight grandchildren. Gerald selflessly served his country. His life's work was his dream. And his family was a source of admiration and great pride. Today we celebrate Gerald's life, which serves as a wonderful example to all who follow in his footsteps.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I would yield to no Member of this House in terms of my efforts to lower prescription drug costs for seniors in America. I support the efforts of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to allow importation of drugs from outside the United States. However, this amendment is not the way to do it. If we look specifically at what this amendment does, it stops all funding for FDA in terms of importation. That is what the amendment actually does. That is a scary thing if we start to think about it. What our subcommittee has done is actually we went essentially to the borders, which is to the airport location where drugs come in. We have also had hearings about drug labs that are taking place right now producing some of these importations. This is not Novartis in Switzerland, this could be in some back alley somewhere in Mexico where it is not the drug, it is paint that is coming in. This amendment cuts out all FDA funding in terms of literally looking at the substance that would come into the United States of America, and zip, nothing. We could not review that if this amendment actually became law.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.