Marilyn Musgrave

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I do represent an area that has wide open spaces. A few years ago, I attended the 50th year anniversary of YW Electric in Akron, Colorado. This rural utility serves a vast area. There were individuals at that anniversary celebration that remembered the day that they got electricity to their rural home. Of course, rural Americans want all of the amenities that we have because of electricity. It just so happens that rural electric lines are built in areas that are remote. It just so happens that that is where raptors are. Again as the gentleman from Colorado said, no one could anticipate the time when laws would be interpreted in such a way that when a bird landed on lines and was electrocuted, a rural electric could be found guilty of an intentional taking. Mr. Chairman, I just ask that you work with us in order to resolve this problem. There, of course, is no intention in the taking of a bird. When lines are changed to pose less danger to birds, of course, those costs will be passed on to our ratepayers, the individuals who purchase electricity from the rural electrics. We would just ask for the chairman's help in this issue solving this in a reasonable way so that it will be beneficial to all of us who care about the birds, but those of us who realize that we have to have some common sense in this approach to whether or not a rural electric is guilty of an intentional taking when a raptor dies because they have landed on the lines.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, if I had been present during the vote on the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker: Dear Mrs. Skelton, Happy Birthday to You! Juanita Skelton, nee Juanita Katherine Campbell, was born on July 8, 1913, near Panhandle, Texas. She graduated from White Deer (Texas) High School in 1930. That year she was Vice President, Girl Favorite, Editor of the Annual, General News Reporter for the Weekly Newspaper, President of the Library Society, President of the Dramatic Club, and Yell Leader for the Pep Squad, and a guard on the women's basketball team. Of course there were only 13 members of her graduating class. She was referred to as ``our seniors' most representative girl.'' She graduated from West Texas State with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1934 and started teaching in Canadian, Texas. She married Hiram Bowmer Skelton on March 3, 1944, when she was 31 years old. They lived in Panhandle, Texas and she helped him run the movie theatre that the family owned. When her husband died, she moved with her son to Arlington, Texas in 1953. She resumed being a high school English teacher at that time. Mrs. Skelton went on to get her Master's in Speech Pathology from Denver University in 1956 and became the first speech therapist in the Arlington School District in 1956. She became the Coordinator of Speech Therapy in 1957 and the Coordinator of Special Education in 1965. She also became the first Director of Special Education in 1974. Mrs. Skelton retired in 1978 after 25 years with the Arlington School District. During her years in special education, Juanita received the following recognition and awards: President of the Texas Association of Administrators in Special Education ``Administrator of the Year Award for Outstanding Leadership;'' Texas Council for Exceptional Children Award as the ``Outstanding Contributor to Special Education.'' In 1989, the Mayor of Arlington, Texas recognized Juanita as the ``outstanding senior citizen.'' She moved to Fort Collins, Colorado in 1997. Again, congratulations on your 90th birthday!

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), specifically Mary Miller and John Knapp of the La Junta, Co., NRCS Office for all of the wonderful work they do for rural Colorado and many of my constituents in Colorado's Fourth Congressional District. NRCS has worked diligently to help farmers and ranchers in Eastern Colorado through this time of hardship and drought. Moreover, Mary and John have given special attention to briefing congressional staffers on many of the issues facing these farmers and ranchers. Their service to the agricultural communities of Eastern Colorado is greatly appreciated by my staff and myself.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. We are told that most of these partial-birth abortions take place in the fifth and sixth month. This is the same time that I got to share in a most wonderful experience, one of the most wonderful experiences of my lifetime. My son and daughter-in-law invited me to come in for the ultrasound of my grandbaby. It was incredible to me as the three of us were in that room and as the technician went about moving the instrument around on my daughter- in-law's abdomen what we saw inside of that womb. We saw the profile of a little boy, a profile that made us realize that he was going to look much like his father. We saw his little faithful heart beating away. We saw the little gestures that he made with his hands. As we looked at that little boy, my daughter-in-law and my son knew what they were going to name him. They were going to name him after his great grandfather. I left that and I went out and I bought the little outfit that that little boy would wear home from the hospital. May we end this horrible practice in our Nation, where we are endowed by our Creator of certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We have had issues that come up which I call perennials. Year after year they come up and, fortunately, in my opinion, this one keeps failing every year. I am glad that the House rejected this amendment in 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, and 1996. Whenever this amendment is brought up, the word ``choice'' is always brought into the conversation. I would urge my colleagues to respect the choices of the American taxpayers. The men and women that get up and go to work every day and pay their taxes in this country have spoken very clearly that they do not want their tax dollars used to provide abortions. Military treatment centers, the very centers that are funded by these American taxpayers who get up and go to work every day and pay their taxes, should be used and dedicated for the healing and nurturing of human life, not taking the life of the most vulnerable of all human beings, the unborn child.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my comments specifically to those who would prevent religious organizations, faith- based organizations, from receiving Federal funds to help unemployed Americans. Religious organizations have often been denied Federal funding simply because they have a religious name or an identity or they hire on a religious basis. Our President has called on his administration and Congress to remove these barriers, and I wholeheartedly support that. I would remind my colleagues that during the 1990s President Clinton supported four laws that allowed religious organizations to retain their right to hire on a religious basis while they were receiving Federal funds, just as Republicans are doing today, to ensure that faith-based organizations can be part of the Federal job training and worker relief system under the Workforce Investment Act. The four laws that were passed during the Clinton administration were the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Act, the Community Services Block Grant of 1998, welfare reform of 1996, and the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000. Faith-based organizations cannot be expected to sustain their religious mission without the ability to employ individuals who share in their tenets and practices. It is that very faith that motivates these people to help Americans that are in trouble. Members of faith-based organizations should enjoy the same right to associate with those that share their unique vision, just as other known-religious groups do. For example, Planned Parenthood may refuse to hire those who do not share its views about abortion. Planned Parenthood Federation of America received over $100 million in Federal funds to support the things that they offer in fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999. Equal treatment requires that religious organizations, faith-based organizations, have the same right to hire on idealogical grounds. Let us allow faith-based organizations to retain their unique character and help and assist Americans who need a job.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, as we look at a disaster such as this, it is hard to comprehend the misery and the suffering. We look at women and the children and the men that are dying such horrible deaths, and it is hard to take it all in. But what we look for in Africa is a ray of hope, a ray of hope for these people; and we see this ray of hope in Uganda. And we see a ray of hope with abstinence education. Abstinence is not just a moral issue. It is an issue of whether or not we will teach people what the healthy life-style is. If we are compassionate about the people in Africa, if our hearts go out to the people that are dying, that are in incredible suffering and misery, we want to do something that works. We want to have something that will give these people hope, that will give them life; and I am in strong support of this amendment.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I am offering today is all about local control. It is all about meeting the needs of a group of children that is in private schools, special ed students that are there; and each one of us would certainly agree that we need to meet the needs of these students. Quite frankly, they are not being met today. Although these children generate funds and are in the count that the public school uses, the Federal dollars flow to the public school, and then these dollars very often do not reach the child in regard to purchasing the special services that they need. This amendment would rectify that by giving the local school districts an option of issuing a certificate to the parents of these special ed students on an average amount of $1,400 so that the parents could purchase the services that these children need. This makes great sense since we want to educate all children well. The children in public school have due process right with their parents. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendments paints all dealers with a very broad brush. In fact, every one of us knows that all retail gun sales are subject to a Federal criminal background check, either directly by the FBI or by a system that the individual States use. If a dealer violates any Federal or State law on gun sales, it loses its protection under this bill. If retailers are sued out of business, the protection for the manufacturers would be absolutely meaningless. This is a blatant attack on our second amendment rights and on our law-abiding citizens.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, this week I had to do the hardest thing that I have done since I have been in Congress. In our offices, in the rooms that we go into even for our hearings, the images of the war are on the TV. We have seen them now day after day. But this week those images became very personal to me. I received word that one of my constituents, Randy Rehn, from Longmont, Colorado, a young man serving his country in Iraq, lost his life. When I got the news, I wanted to call Randy's family and offer my sympathy. And when Randy's mother answered the phone, I got a lump in my throat that would not go away. I have a son about that age, and I thought of what his mother was feeling at that time, and as I talked to her, she told me that just 2 short years ago she lost Randy's father to cancer and so she was facing this crisis without him, but she said she was very thankful that her other children were there with her and were supporting her. When we think about these losses, this war becomes very real to us. As I talked on to Randy's mother, she told me that he had a little daughter who is less than 1 year old. And tonight I would like to speak to little Megan, and I would like to say some things to her that will mean something to her when she is older and she can read this and she can understand. I would like to say to little Megan tonight, the precious little girl that will have to grow up without her father, that your daddy was serving his country and he was doing what needed to be done for little children just like you, Megan. I want Megan to know that her dad is a hero. I want her to know that he was doing a job that was extremely hard to do, and he was doing it willingly, and I am sure he was well aware that there were sacrifices to be made. So tonight, Megan, I want to say to you that your daddy laid down his life for others, especially little children like you. The Scripture says that our God will be a Father to the fatherless, and I just pray a special blessing on your little life, Megan, that God will bless you and your family, and I want you to always remember that your daddy was a hero and we love our soldiers who serve this country, who lay down their lives.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, it was not long ago we were standing in this place voicing our support of the troops; and when we were voicing that support, I think some of the most poignant remarks came from the soldiers in our midst. It is hard to imagine what it is like being in the middle of a war for those that have not done it like myself. However, the sponsor of this amendment has been there. He has had the experience of being a soldier in a very perilous situation, and I think today that the sponsor of this amendment is putting himself in the place of the soldiers that are serving us in this conflict right now. We have not forgotten what Turkey has done for us. My brother-in-law is a Korean War veteran, and we appreciate their friendship and their support through the years. But one of the qualities of friendship is steadfastness, being able to call on a friend in one's time of need. Turkey has failed us now in this present situation. In fact, Under Secretary Wolfowitz told the House of Representatives on March 27, ``There is no question if we had had a U.S. armored force in Iraq right now, the end of the war would have been closer.'' Every one of us in this Chamber, every citizen in the United States, wants this conflict to end as soon as possible. If Turkey had done what the United States had requested and needs, and given their full support and assistance, many lives would have been saved. The soldiers that my distinguished colleague identifies with that are in this conflict today, many of them would not have been killed. I find it offensive that we would say to the families of those soldiers that have been lost, we are going to reward Turkey's behavior by giving them $1 billion in aid today. I think there are consequences when nations take action that harm our soldiers, and I would ask that we support this amendment that is given by the heart of a soldier.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, whenever there are problems such as this $64 million shortfall, we need to have clear answers and a remedy for such a problem. I am definitely in support of the Hoekstra amendment because I do not believe that it is appropriate at this time for us to do this $64 million bailout when we do not have even an explanation as to why it exists. When we look at current law, it explicitly states: ``The corporation may not approve positions as approved national service positions for a fiscal year in excess of the number of such positions for which the corporation has sufficient available funds in the national service trust for that fiscal year.'' We are looking at a critical problem here, and it should not be addressed in this way, in this particular legislation. This funding to eliminate the shortfall should only be addressed after Congress can be assured that the tracking failures will not be an ongoing problem. Again, I support the Hoekstra amendment.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, as I sat last night in front of the TV, I could not take my eyes off of the images that I was seeing because, as a mother, I was thinking of my son. The gentlemen know that a mother's love is different than a father's love. As I sat there, I thought of my grandmother, who sent two young sons off to war. I thought of my uncle, who was missing in action for over 13 months; of how the family felt when they did not know whether he was dead or alive. I thought of my brother-in-law, who served in Korea. I thought of him because that, as you know, is the forgotten war. I thought of my brother who served in Germany. I thought of the heroes among us in this Chamber, the veterans that we love and we honor. I thought of when I first shook the hand of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). When I found out why his hand was crippled, I thought of how I wanted to kiss his hand and honor him. Tonight, with a mother's heart, I want to say, God bless each one of the young men and women who are serving us. God bless their families that have made the sacrifice. When we are away from our loved ones, we want to hold them; and we are holding them in our hearts. Today I got an e-mail from John, and it touched me. Let me just share it with you: ``Hey, everyone, I just wanted to drop an e-mail to you to let you know I am doing great and that I am safe and sound. Here on the ship, the spirits are high. Everyone is going about their business like we do every day. Everyone here is united in the spirit of what we are doing. It gives us a sense of how important our job really is. All the late hours, all the things we put up with, are now justified. ``Just wanted to give you a quick update and thank you for your thoughts and your prayers.'' Tonight my thoughts and prayers are with our Commander in Chief. I pray that the Lord would give him wisdom. I pray for the team that he has surrounded himself with. I pray for the families whose young people are serving. I want to give a clear message to every one of those young men and young women: never again in this Nation should we tell anyone who is serving that we do not appreciate what they have done, because we appreciate every one of them. We love them and we hold them in our hearts tonight. God willing they will come home so we can hold them in our arms again.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support the balanced budget alternative offered by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). The Toomey budget offers several key priorities for the Nation at this time of war and economic uncertainty. The people of Colorado sent me here to rein in out-of-control government spending, to cut taxes, and to get government off their backs. Instead of spending the people's money like there is no tomorrow, we ought to provide real leadership and real solutions to demonstrate responsible fiscal discipline. Mr. Chairman, just as it is our duty to protect American families from cowardly acts of terrorism, it is also our duty to protect the well-being of American families by balancing the budget to grow the American economy. It is our duty to protect the people's wallets by allowing taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. I do not want to mortgage the future of working families because we cannot say no to a government that is far too big and spends far too much. The American people will be proud of the Toomey budget because it keeps President Bush's tax cuts intact, while balancing the budget in a realistic 4-year time frame. I ask my fellow Members of Congress to stand up and to do the right thing for America. Let us not shirk our responsibilities to future generations. Please join me in supporting the Toomey budget amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act. The passage of this bill is of utmost urgency as scientists in this country and around the world are making dangerous advances towards the creation of a cloned human being. The science of human cloning may be difficult to explain and to understand to those of us who are not scientists, but its immorality is not without question. You do not have to be a scientist to know this is wrong. Whether produced for the intention of human reproduction or for the purpose of medical research, the fact remains the same: human cloning is simply wrong. It invariably requires the creation and killing of numerous human lives in the effort to produce either cloned cells for the purpose of research or cloned human beings. Numerous ethical questions arise. Who, for example, would be the parents of a cloned human being? What rights would they have? And what about the potential to create human-animal hybrids through the transferring of human nuclear material into animal eggs? If we open the door to human cloning, these ethical problems will be unavoidable. Additionally, cloning cheapens all human life by making it a commodity, an object to tinker with, to alter, to change to a scientist's preset specifications. Manipulating the genetic outcomes of human reproduction render certain people desirable and others not. How then will society view these people determined less desirable? Are they of less human value? In fact, if we do not enact a ban on human cloning, these situations I have described are just a few of the scenarios we will face in the near future. As one of the Nation's leading bioethicists, Dr. Leon Kass, has said, ``We are compelled to decide nothing less than whether human procreation is going to remain human, whether children are going to be made to order rather than begotten, and whether we wish to say yes in principle to the road that leads to the dehumanized hell of `Brave New World.' '' The American people have spoken loud and clear on their view on this issue, as has the scientific community, our President, and this body of Congress last year. The national consensus is evident. Human cloning for any reason, whether for research or reproduction, should be prohibited. Please join me in voting ``yes'' on the Weldon-Stupak bill and ``no'' on the Greenwood substitute. National Right to Life Committee, Inc., February 10, 2003. Congress Resumes Action on Human Cloning Legislation this Week, As Supporters of Cloning Human Embryos Try to Fool Lawmakers, Journalists, and the Public with Deceptive ``Egg-Speak'' introduction Congress is renewing consideration of whether to ban all human cloning, as a number of other major nations have already done. On Wednesday, February 12, the House Judiciary Committee will act on the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534). This bill, which is backed by President Bush, would ban the creation of human embryos by cloning. In the Senate, the same policy is embodied in the Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245). Those who favor cloning human embryos are proposing competing legislation that would allow the mass cloning of human embryos to be killed in research, but attempt to ban implantation of such an embryo in a womb. In the House, we expect that this ``clone and kill'' approach will be advanced by Rep. Jim Greeenwood (R-Pa.), who offered such a proposal in 2001. In the Senate, a cloning-embryos-for-research bill has been introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.), and others as S. 303. In recent days, a number of news outlets have transmitted inaccurate reports about what these competing bills would each allow and forbid--reports that obscure what the argument is really about. These points of confusion are discussed in more detail below. president bush's position President Bush has repeatedly called on Congress to ban all human cloning (i.e., to ban the cloning of human embryos). In remarks on January 22, the President said, ``I also urge the Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not create life to destroy life. Human beings are not research material to be used in a cruel and reckless experiment.'' In his January 28 State of the Union speech, the President said, ``Because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning.'' In a speech on human cloning last year, President Bush warned that unless such legislation is enacted, human ``embryo farms'' will be established in the United States. (See www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/ print/2002410-4.html) the situation in congress The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534) on Wednesday, February 12, at 10:15 a.m., at 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. Once the committee completes its work, the full House could take up the bill at any time. H.R. 534 is nearly identical to the measure that passed the House on July 31, 2001, by lopsided bipartisan vote of 265-162 (roll call no. 304). When the House considered the issue on that occasion, it decisively rejected (249-178) a substitute amendment, the Greenwood- Deutsch Amendment, that would have allowed the cloning of human embryos for research (roll call no. 302) The Senate companion to the Weldon-Stupak bill, the Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245), currently has 26 cosponsors. A radically different measure, the Hatch- Feinstein bill (S. 303), has only eight cosponsors, but it has considerable additional support, mostly among Senate Democrats. The Brownback-Landrieu bill has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), which is chaired by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who was a cosponsor of the bill in the 107th Congress. The Hatch- Feinstein bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Hatch chairs. Whatever happens in these committees, the full Senate ultimately will vote on both of these diametrically conflicting approaches. The recently selected Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist (R-Tn.), said in a January 12 interview on Fox News Sunday, ``I am opposed to any time that you create an embryo itself with the purpose being destruction, and that would include the so-called research cloning. And remember, research cloning is just that, it's experimental. There's been no demonstrated benefit of that to date, so I don't think you ought to destroy life. . .'' The key differences between the two bills are discussed below. In many recent news media reports on human cloning issues, the differences have been mischaracterized, and the specific activities that each bill would allow and prohibit have been widely misunderstood. misconceptions and facts Misconception: The Brownback-Landrieu/Weldon-Stupak legislation prohibits cloning of human ``cells,'' while the Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow cloning of ``cells.'' Reality: The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245) and the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534)-- like their predecessors in the 107th Congress--explicitly allow ``the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.'' [Sec. 2 of the bill, at (d) in H.R. 534 and at (e) in S. 245; boldface added for emphasis] Thus, the methods currently used to ``clone'' new skin, for example, or to ``clone'' DNA, are perfectly okay under the Brownback-Landrieu bill. Moreover, any cloning method that would produce stem cells without first producing and killing a human embryo--as some researchers have claimed that they eventually will be able to do--is explicitly permitted by this language. In addition, the Brownback-Landrieu and Weldon-Stupak bills place no restrictions on research of any kind on human ova (``eggs''). In short, the Brownback/Weldon legislation and the Hatch- Feinstein legislation are alike in that they would both permit cloning involving merely eggs, cells, or tissues, but they differ on one profound issue: The Hatch-Feinstein/ Greenwood proposals would allow the use of the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) process to clone human embryos, and the Brownback/Weldon legislation would forbid the use of SCNT to clone human embryos. Verbiage by supporters of ``research cloning'' about ``eggs'' and ``cells'' is intended to conceal what the argument is really about: whether it should be permitted to clone human embryos. Misconception: So-called ``therapeutic cloning'' does not involve creating human embryos. Fact: That SCNT using human genetic material will create a developing embryo of the species Homo sapiens is something that authorities on all sides agreed on until sometime in 2001, when some of the pro-cloning forces decided to try to obscure this fact for political purposes. Among those who clearly affirmed that SCNT will create human embryos were the bioethics panels of both Presidents Clinton and Bush, the embryo research panel at NIH, and the chief cloning researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts. Some samples of such statements, which pre-date the current disinformation campaign, are posted here: www.nrlc.org/ Killing_Embryos/factsheetembryo.html. The cite just one example here, a group of scientists, ethicists, and biotechnology executives advocating so-called ``therapeutic cloning'' and use of human embryos for research--Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania, Lee Silver of Princeton University, Ronald Green of Dartmouth University, and Michael West, Robert Lanza, and Jose Cibelli of Advanced Cell Technology--wrote in the December 27, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, ``CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, another term for ``therapeutic cloning''] requires the deliberate creation and disaggregation of a human embryo.'' They also wrote, ``. . . because therapeutic cloning requires the creation and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions.'' In its 2002 report on human cloning, the President's Council on Bioethics, although divided on policy recommendations, provided without dissent recommendations regarding the use of honest terminology in this crucial public policy debate, including acknowledging that successful SCNT will create human embryos. The Council said, ``The product of `SCNT' is not only an embryo; it is also a clone, genetically virtually identical to the individual that was the source of the transferred nucleus, hence an embryonic clone of the donor.'' The Council recommended use of the terms ``cloning for biomedical research'' and ``cloning to produce children'' to distinguish between two of the purposes for which human embryos might be cloned. (``Cloning for research'' and ``cloning for birth'' convey pretty much the same thing.) The Council's discussion on accurate and neutral terminology is here: www.bioethics.gov/cloningreport/terminology.html. The phrase ``reproductive cloning'' is misleading, because whenever somatic cell nuclear transfer produces a developing embryo, ``reproduction'' has occurred. The term ``therapeutic cloning'' is misleading, because no therapies have been demonstrated using cloned embryos (even in animals, as discussed below), and the process is certainly not ``therapeutic'' for the human embryo who is dissected--which is what the argument is about. Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow research only on ``unfertilized eggs up to 14 days.'' Reality: As can be confirmed by reference to any biology text or even any decent dictionary, a human ovum or ``egg'' is, by definition, a single cell. Moreover, it is a very unusual cell--a gamete cell, which means it has only 23 chromosomes. An ovum has no sex. As discussed above, once one has a complete nucleus from any species that is activated (whether by sexual fertilization or by asexual somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT) and developing, then one has a developing embryo of that species (sheep, cow, Homo sapiens, etc). There is no such thing in biology or in any dictionary as a human ``egg'' or ``egg cell'' that has 46 chromosomes, is either male or female, and is five days old (consisting of several hundred cells) or even 14 days old (consisting of thousands of cells). In short, calling a five-day-old or a two-week-old human embryo an ``egg'' is an attempt to deceive the public regarding what the policy argument is really about. We submit that this is not an effort in which responsible journalists should enlist. The actual text of the Hatch-Feinstein bill coins the term ``unfertilized blastocyst.'' But ``blastocyst'' is simply a technical term for an embryo at an early stage of development. As for ``unfertilized,'' this is just another word trick aimed at the gullible. Of course human embryos produced by cloning will be ``unfertilized,'' because that is what cloning is: asexual reproduction--no sperm. Every cloned mammal in the world was unfertilized from the one- celled embryo stage, and every one of them will be unfertilized on the day they die. If a human embryo created by cloning instead of fertilization is implanted in a womb, is born, and lives to be eighty, she will still be unfertilized. Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill is a compromise that would accomplish what almost everyone agrees on, banning ``reproductive cloning.'' Reality: Far from representing ``common ground,'' the Hatch-Feinstein bill represents a policy disfavored by most Americans and strongly opposed by the Bush Administration. It will not become law. But that does not bother many of its backers, such as the biotechnology industry lobby, because the primary purpose of the Hatch-Feinstein bill is to impede enactment of the real ban on human cloning, by providing political cover for lawmakers who favor allowing the creation of human embryos for research. Notwithstanding the marketing efforts of the biotechnology industry lobby and its allies, the Hatch-Feinstein bill or the Greenwood amendment would enact a policy that is far from a consensus position--indeed, a policy that the substantial majority of Americans oppose. A Gallup poll in May 2002 found that 61 percent of the American people opposed ``cloning of human embryos for use in medical research'' (34 percent approved), which is precisely what the Hatch-Feinstein bill is crafted to allow and indeed encourage. In other polls, substantially higher numbers are opposed when it is explained that the human embryos will die in the research. The Hatch-Feinstein bill is not a partial solution or a middle ground. Rather, it is a step in the wrong direction. The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give a green light to the establishment of human embryo farms. The ``clone and kill'' approach has already been emphatically rejected by the Bush Administration and by the House of Representatives (in 2001). Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson last year sent a letter to Senator Brownback warning that such a bill would face a presidential veto. Thompson wrote, ``The President does not believe that `reproductive' and `research cloning should be treated differently, given that they both require the creation, exploitation, and destruction of human embryos . . . the Administration could not support any measure that purported to ban `reproductive' cloning while authorizing research cloning, and I would recommend to the President that he veto such a bill.'' (See www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/ ThompsontoBrownback.pdf). The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give federal law enforcement agencies responsibility for trying to enforce a ban on implanting a cloned embryo in a womb--an approach that the Justice Department in 2002 rejected as unworkable. The Department explained that once large numbers of cloned human embryos are created, there is no practical way to prevent some of them from being implanted in wombs, and no remedy to apply after that occurs. The testimony is posted here: www.nrlc,org/killing_embryos/Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf. Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would ``ban human cloning'' or ``ban the cloning of human beings.'' Reality: The Hatch-Feinstein bill does not ban ``human cloning.'' It bans implanting a cloned human embryo ``into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus'' (the latter term is not defined), an act to which criminal penalties are attached. It also attempts to impose a rule against allowing a cloned human embryo (a so-called ``unfertilized blastocyst'') to develop past 14 days of age (not counting time frozen). Violations of this ``14-day rule'' are subject to a civil fine of up to $250,000, and there is nothing in the bill to prevent the threat of such a fine from being applied even against a woman who carries an unborn cloned human in utero, perhaps in an attempt to compel her to procure an abortion. It other words, the bill bans not ``human cloning,'' but the survival of human clones, which is a very different thing. Any bill that permits cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer) with human nuclei does not ``ban human cloning,'' because such a bill allows the cloning of embryos of the species Homo sapiens, and an embryo of the species Homo sapiens is human (just as the cloned embryo that was later born as Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, was always a member of the species Ovis aries). As to whether a cloned human embryo is to be regarded as a ``human being,'' we would think that journalists would want to avoid blatantly taking sides on that question. A statement that the Hatch-Feinstein bill ``bans the cloning of human beings'' is certainly taking sides on the issue, because it amounts to a declaration that a two-week-old embryo of the species Homo sapiens is not a ``human being.'' (if not, what species of being is it?) It appears that President Bush is among those who recognize cloned human embryos as human beings: in his January 22 statement, the President said, ``I also urge the Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not create life to destroy life. Human beings are not research material to be used in a cruel and reckless experiment.'' [emphasis added] The National Right to Life Committee believes that if a cloned human being is born, she should have the same status as other humans--but Senator Hatch and some others apparently are not so sure. In a press release dated February 5, 2002, Senator Hatch said, ``No doubt somewhere, some--such as the Raelians--are trying to make a name for themselves and are busy trying to apply the techniques that gave us Dolly the Sheep to human beings. Frankly, I am not sure that human being would even be the correct term for such an individual heretofore unknown in nature.'' As Slate.com columnist Will Saletan commented (``Killing Eve,'' December 31, 2002, http://slate.msn.com/id/2076199/), ``The first cloned baby--Eve or whoever comes after her-- won't be fertilized. If fertilization is a prerequisite to humanity, as Hatch and Feinstein suggest, that baby will never be human. You can press the pillow over her face and walk away.'' (See also: www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/ arecloneshuman.html). Misconception: Those who favor cloning for research would never allow clones to develop past two weeks of age. Reality: While the Hatch-Feinstein bill purports to establish a two-week ``deadline'' for killing human clones, there are substantial reasons to doubt that the biotechnology industry would support such a limitation in a bill it actually expected to become law. Already, some policymakers are opening the door to ``fetus farming'' with human clones. For example, the New Jersey legislature appears close to giving final approval to a bill that would permit cloned humans to be grown through any stage of fetal development, even to birth, to obtain tissues for transplantation, as long as they are not kept alive past the ``newborn'' stage. (SB 1909, as amended) Four members of the President's Council on Bioethics wrote to Gov. James McGreevey to warn about the bill's radical implications. (See www.nationalreview.com/ document/document020303c.asp). Last year, researchers reported harvesting tissue from cloned cows at six and eight weeks of fetal development, and from cloned mice at the newborn stage. Both studies were widely reported by the news media as breakthroughs for so- called ``therapeutic cloning.'' Indeed, so far these are the only two animal studies that have claimed to show ``therapeutic'' results from cloning.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the debt that all of us owe to the pioneering work of Susan B. Anthony. Susan B. Anthony is celebrated for her indispensable role in securing for women the right to vote and setting our Nation on the course towards recognizing the full equality and the dignity of women. For Susan B. Anthony and her colleagues in the 19th century, promoting women's rights and promoting the dignity of women also meant opposing the evil of abortion. Out of respect for women recovering from abortion, I will refrain from using the term that Susan B. Anthony used to describe this procedure. Susan B. Anthony was very insightful. She was one of our pioneering feminists, and she was also a strong pro-life advocate. It is instructive, Mr. Speaker, that Susan B. Anthony's opposition to abortion arose from her fight for equal rights for women, and that she saw no reason to separate the two. Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate the 183rd anniversary of Susan B. Anthony's birthday and her human rights legacy, let us not separate the fight for equal rights for women from the fight for rights for all women, born and unborn. Mr. Speaker, abortion is one of the greatest human rights issues that face us in our time. In honoring Susan B. Anthony, let us agree that being pro-life is inseparable from being pro-woman.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I thank the gentleman. I certainly yield to the gentleman in regard to the clinical objections that you have raised and with all of your knowledge of medical issues raised in regard to human cloning. However, I would like to rise to speak to the profound moral issues raised when we consider permitting medical science to create human life for the exclusive purpose of experimentation and destruction. I think that we need to look to human history. It is a truth of history that governments and mankind, if given the opportunity under the law, will trample on human life. History is strewn with such examples. By legalizing human cloning for any reason, and many of them can sound altruistic even if they are false, we open a Pandora's box which could set our civilization on a similar course. It is morally wrong to create human life, even nascent human life, for the purpose of experimentation and destruction.