Joseph Pitts

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the copies of the letters and the statement. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, January 7, 2005. Hon. Julie Gerberding, Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA. Dear Dr. Gerberding: On November 27, 2004, the Lancet published a statement entitled ``The Time Has Come for Common Ground on Preventing Sexual Transmission of HIV.'' Signed by more than 100 religious, political, health and scientific leaders from across the developed and developing world, this statement called for an end to ``polarizing debate'' and urged the international community ``to unite around an inclusive evidence-based approach to slow the spread of sexually transmitted HIV.'' We are writing to ask whether you support this statement. The statement describes key elements of successful HIV prevention. These include: 1. Ensuring prevention activities are grounded in the science of epidemiology, supported at the local level, and respectful of human rights; 2. Promoting abstinence among those young people who are not yet sexually active, encouraging mutual monogamy among sexually active adults, and helping individuals who engage in high-risk activities to stop; 3. Encouraging correct and consistent condom use among individuals who are engaging in high-risk activities and those who are sexually active with a partner whose HIV status is unknown; 4. Expanding prevention programs for young people both in and out of school, supporting parents ``in communicating their values and expectations about sexual behavior''; and 5. Employing community-based approaches that involve religious organizations, women's and men's organizations, care groups, youth organizations, health workers, local media, and traditional and governmental leadership. The statement also notes that expanding access to services for testing, counseling and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing mother-to-child transmission, and enhancing access to family planning services are all essential in order to achieve the prevention, care and treatment objectives of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS and other global initiatives. It endorses continuing review of potential interventions such as microbicides, new antibiotic treatments, and vaccines. The statement was written by several of the world's leading HIV experts, and endorsed by more than 100 leaders in the fight against AIDS from 36 countries across a range of disciplines. Notable endorsers include: Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa Stephen Lewis, and HIV/AIDS Director at the World Health Organization Jim Kim. The statement has also been endorsed by representatives from the World Bank; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria; and the heads of HIV/AIDS programs in several countries including Ethiopia, India, Jamaica, and Uganda. Leaders and representatives from major faith- and community-based nongovernmental organizations from the United States and around the world also back the statement. Given the broad international and domestic support for the Lancet statement and the importance of collaboration in AIDS prevention efforts worldwide, we would like to know whether you, as a key leader in this administration in combating HIV/ AIDS, support this statement. We would appreciate a response by January 24, 2005. Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives; Nita M. Lowey, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives; Fortney Pete Stark, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives; Sherrod Brown, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives; Barbara Lee, Chair, Global AIDS Initiative, Congressional Black Caucus, House of Representatives. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., Member of Congress; Betty McCollum, Member of Congress; Howard L. Berman, Member of Congress; Lois Capps, Member of Congress; Richard J. Durbin, U.S. Senator.

Mr. PITTS. I would yield.

Mr. PITTS. That's the quote that I read from the statement he signed.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, there is flexibility in the existing program. Countries can apply for a waiver. Every country that has applied has received a waiver. Our friends say that all they want to do is provide flexibility and more condoms. Well, for 20 years of fighting AIDS, the bureaucrats who run these programs tried the same approach over and over again. It never worked. When Uganda came up with a comprehensive approach that would, they still opposed it. Well, the buck stops here in Congress, and we told them in 2003 to do what works, and it's working. Without this amendment, this bill will allow them to go back to the failed policies of the passed. So many on the other side are saying we need to listen to the other experts on the ground; we need to follow their advice. That's true. They even raise this point with the Centers for Disease Control in a letter signed by several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including the distinguished subcommittee chairwoman, Mrs. Lowey. That letter highlighted the report that was written by the world's leading HIV/AIDS experts, was endorsed by more than 100 leaders from 36 countries, people like the President of Uganda, people like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the HIV/AIDS director of the World Health Organization, researchers from Johns Hopkins and other leading medical institutions. Allow me to quote from what these people, the experts, are saying about what's working to reduce AIDS prevalence: ``When targeting young people for those who have not started sexual activity, the first priority should be to encourage abstinence or delay of sexual onset, hence emphasizing risk avoidance as the best way to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, as well as unwanted pregnancies.'' Abstinence, behavior change, that is what the experts are stressing. I agree, the experts know best. They are saying that a comprehensive approach that includes behavioral change is crucial to winning the fight against AIDS.

Mr. PITTS. That's correct.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. PITTS. That's correct. Every country that requested waivers has received one.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Dr. David Weldon, 2 minutes.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I didn't know I was going to get a biblical lesson here, but I would just ask the man rhetorically, is abstinence biblical? Is faithfulness biblical? That's what we're speaking on behalf of. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska who is a member of the Africa Subcommittee, Mr. Fortenberry.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, United Nations program on HIV/AIDS report estimates that there are 40 million people infected with HIV/AIDS worldwide, and like everyone else, I am deeply saddened by this reality. However, I am also filled with hope because recent evidence indicates that the current prevention strategy is helping to produce behavioral change that has significantly decreased people's risk of contracting this deadly disease. The current HIV/AIDS prevention strategy was carefully crafted in the PEPFAR authorization bill to reflect a balanced approach, and the good news is that this balanced approach is working. The PEPFAR authorization bill, which became law in 2003, included a provision that required one-third of the 20 percent for prevention funding, that is approximately 7 percent of the total PEPFAR funds, to be spent on abstinence and fidelity programs. Prior to the implementation of this spending directive, the U.S. promoted an unbalanced condoms-only approach. The U.S. remains the largest distributor of condoms in the world. But for the first time the behavior factor is getting real attention under the current program rules. And the result: falling HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in 7 of the 15 focus countries. The current prevention strategy is based on the comprehensive ABC model, first established in Uganda, developed by Uganda. The ABC model stands for A, abstinence; B, be faithful; C, condoms. A comprehensive, balanced approach. After implementation of this model in Uganda, the number of young males age 15 to 24 reporting premarital sex decreased from 60 percent in 1989 to 23 percent in 1995. For females, the decline was 53 percent to 16 percent. The program actually helped change the behavior in women and men, a fact I hope my colleagues take seriously. Opponents of this approach claim that behavioral change is unrealistic. Dr. Edward Green, a researcher at Harvard University, was an opponent of the ABC model and in particular of abstinence until he saw what happened in Uganda. He testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee saying: ``Many of us in the AIDS and public health communities did not believe that abstinence or delay and faithfulness were realistic goals. It now seems we were wrong.'' Not only has Uganda seen a society transformed by behavioral change, we can now add Kenya, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Namibia, Tanzania, and Zambia to the list of countries that are experiencing a decrease in HIV/AIDS prevalence rates. Experts continue to testify to the fact that behavioral change continues to be the key indicator of HIV/AIDS prevention. Yet for some reason, some of my colleagues have decided to make a crucial provision of this successful strategy optional. This crucial provision ensures that the ``abstinence'' and ``be faithful'' components are incorporated into the approach. Never mind the fact that PEPFAR is expected to be reauthorized later this year, and never mind the fact that the reauthorization might be the more appropriate forum to debate this critical component that was agreed to. Some of my colleagues argue that we need a comprehensive approach, but I remind them that abstinence and fidelity education are fundamental to the comprehensive ABC approach. Some of my colleagues argue that we need an approach that saves lives. I remind them that the ABC model, with the A and the B spending requirement intact, is continuing to save more and more lives. In countries that have relied predominantly on condom distribution, HIV/ AIDS prevalence rates have not improved. Meanwhile, countries that promote behavioral change have seen significant improvement. Mr. Chairman, a balanced, evidence-based approach is essential if we are going to effectively fight HIV/AIDS in Africa. The current policy is the balanced approach. It is the evidence-based approach. It is the approach that is working. Why change what works? I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment and keep abstinence and fidelity in the AIDS program, and in doing so, to vote for an approach that is saving lives. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, today is World Refugee Day, a day of honoring the courage and raising the plight of more than 8 million refugees and 23.7 million internally displaced persons around the world. This year, on the sixth anniversary of the United Nations- designated World Refugee Day, organizations in hundreds of countries will come together to focus global attention on those refugees who have been displaced by natural disasters or were forced to leave their homes, native countries, and loved ones due to the political, ethnic or religious oppression and persecution they would have faced otherwise. The United States historically has led efforts to assist various refugee populations, as exemplified through U.S. efforts to assist Vietnamese refugees in the late 1970s. Now, in the 21st century, the U.S. has a particularly compelling reason to focus on the Iraqi refugee crisis. Approximately 2 million Iraqi refugees have fled persecution, violence, threats of kidnapping and death threats, mostly moving to Syria and Jordan. The threats have been dire for ethnic and religious minorities. At least 1.9 million people are displaced within Iraq. Many of these 3.9 million have been targeted due to their work for the U.S. Government, NGOs or the media. There have been important steps taken in Congress to address the concerns of refugees related to Afghanistan and Iraq, such as encouraging the provision of special immigrant status for translators or interpreters serving with Federal agencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, since 2003, the U.S. Government has allowed only 466 Iraqi refugees to enter the U.S. It is important that the U.S. initiate more active measures to assist these refugees, such as increasing the number of Iraqis that are brought into the resettlement program. During a recent trip to the Middle East, I heard stories of Iraqi refugees and the dire threats that forced them to flee their homeland. Madam Speaker, in addition to spotlighting the situation of Iraqi refugees, it is vital that the international community continue to shine a spotlight on the situation facing refugees from and displaced persons in Burma. The military dictatorship continues its campaign against the ethnic peoples through forced labor, the use of rape as a weapon of terror, destruction of food sources, destruction of over 3,000 villages in the last few years, and the use of ethnic peoples as human land mine sweepers. Unfortunately, certain countries believe it is in their interest to keep this regime in power--I would heartily disagree. The refugee and displacement crisis in Burma could be resolved immediately if the regime were to step down and allow the rightfully elected leaders of Burma to take office. World Refugee Day is a day for the international community, governments and citizens alike, to show our common concern for refugees and displaced persons. Most people in the world would love to stay in their homeland, but frequently conflicts and other situations force them to leave. Our country was founded by people fleeing oppression. The U.S. must continue to be the global leader in refugee protection in the Middle East, in Southeast Asia, and around the world.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, today is World Refugee Day, and I rise to draw the attention of this body to the plight of millions of refugees and internally displaced people around the world. As a beacon of hope and freedom, the United States has historically been a leader in raising awareness and providing assistance to the world's refugees, and the need is certainly great. Thousands, for instance, of Iraqis have been forced to flee their homeland and face a daily existence that denies them even the most basic protections. The military dictatorship in Burma has inflicted such horrific violence on the Burmese people that hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to flee just to save their own lives. These are just two examples. The list goes on. There are over 8 million refugees, nearly 24 million IDPs, internally displaced people, worldwide. Combined, that's nearly equal to the population of California. On this World Refugee Day, let us remember the plight of these people. Try to find ways that we can help and support them.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has been very clear. If Congress sends him appropriations bills that weaken current pro-life provisions, he will veto the bills. But don't be surprised if the new Democratic majority is trying to do so anyway. When they do, I am sure they will have countless reasons for why they should weaken protections for the unborn. But as this debate goes forward, it's important to keep in mind how much Uncle Sam already gives to abortion providers. Planned Parenthood reported record profits in 2005-2006 fiscal year. Guess who helped them achieve these profits? That's right, the American taxpayer. In 2005-2006, Planned Parenthood received over $305 million in taxpayer funding, the most ever in a year. They also performed nearly 265,000 abortions, another record. Keep this in mind as we hear the other side's arguments for giving even more money to abortion providers. The fact is, these groups are milking the American taxpayers. President Bush is right to stand up for current pro-life provisions, and House Republicans will stand with him on the issue.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the upcoming possible deportation of Mr. Sameh Khouzam, an Egyptian man who is currently detained in York, Pennsylvania. The Second Circuit Court granted a stay of deportation to Egypt based on a finding that it was ``more likely than not'' that he would be tortured upon return. Reportedly, the U.S. Government received assurances from the Egyptian Government that Mr. Khouzam would not be tortured were he to be returned to Egypt. I am deeply disturbed that the U.S. Government appears to have taken this assurance at face value in light of the extensive evidence of torture against Egyptian citizens, particularly against religious minorities. Mr. Khouzam fled Egypt in 1998, due to pressure from the Egyptian government to forcibly change his religion. Reports suggest that he, and other family members, were detained and imprisoned by the government during these reported attempts at forcible conversion. Mr. Khouzam then fled the country fearing for his life. During the flight to the United States, Egyptian officials notified U.S. officials that Mr. Khouzam was wanted for murder. When he landed in the U.S., authorities noticed that he was injured (due to Egyptian security officials' actions) and placed him in the hospital. After his release from the hospital, he was imprisoned in the U.S. due to Egyptian government requests, despite the absence of credible evidence and the lack of autopsy reports substantiating the ``murder'' charges. Mr. Khouzam was imprisoned in the U.S. for 8 years, until he was granted parole based on a Second Circuit Court decision that were he to be deported he would most certainly face torture at the hands of the Egyptian Government. By all accounts, Mr. Khouzam is an upstanding, contributing member of the communities in which he works, lives, and worships in Pennsylvania. It came as a great surprise to everyone when Mr. Khouzam, following instructions, voluntarily reported to immigration authorities to check in with them on Tuesday, May 29, 2007, but was then detained, imprisoned, and informed that the Egyptian Government provided ``assurances'' that he would not be tortured, therefore, he would be deported on Friday, June 1, 2007. Mr. Khouzam's lawyers requested an extension of the stay of deportation; the request was granted for an extension until Thursday, June 7, 2007 and extended again until Monday, June 18, 2007. It is deeply disturbing that the U.S. Department of State and Department of Homeland Security would, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, accept at face value a promise from the Egyptian Government. Over the years, a number of Members of Congress have personally worked on numerous cases in Egypt in which the government has used torture against its own citizens. The most recent Country Reports on Human Rights Practices issued by the U.S. Department of State detail that that there were ``numerous, credible reports that security forces tortured and mistreated prisoners and detainees,'' that security forces ``employ torture to extract information or force confessions,'' and that ``human rights monitors believe the use of torture by police [is] widespread.'' Further, the Country Reports describe the torture methods used by Egyptian security officials, ``Principal methods of torture reportedly employed by the police and the SSIS included stripping and blindfolding victims; suspending victims from a ceiling or doorframe with feet just touching the floor; beating victims with fists, whips, metal rods, or other objects; using electrical shocks; and dousing victims with cold water. Victims frequently reported being subjected to threats and forced to sign blank papers for use against themselves or their families should they in the future lodge complaints about the torture. Some victims, including male and female detainees and children, reported sexual assaults or threats of rape against themselves or family members.'' Even further, the Report states that ``Security forces continued to mistreat and torture prisoners, arbitrarily arrest and detain persons, hold detainees in prolonged pretrial detention, and engage in mass arrests.'' Further, the State Department, as have numerous human rights organizations, has documented persecution by the government of Egypt against Coptic Christians. All this evidence and the clear patterns of the use of torture as well as persecution against religious minorities indicate that the ``assurances'' of the Egyptian Government on these matters are not reliable. Madam Speaker, in two recent news programs on an Australian television station, former Central Intelligence official Bob Baer made it clear that the U.S. Government knows of the widespread torture in Egypt, and, in fact, considers that knowledge in decisions to send individuals to Egypt. When asked if ther was any doubt someone would be tortured if he were returned to Egypt, Mr. Baer answered, ``Oh absolutely no doubt at all . . . [if you] send them to Egypt it might as well, it's tantamount to condemning them to death.'' In another part of the program, Mr. Baer stated, regarding sending people overseas, ``If you never want to hear from them again, send them to Egypt. That's pretty much the rule.'' When again asked, ``When someone's rendered to Egypt, is there any doubt that they're going to be tortured?'' Mr. Baer said, ``Oh absolutely no doubt at all.'' Yet, the U.S. Government is willing to accept the ``diplomatic assurances'' of the Egyptian Government that Mr. Sameh Khouzam, who has already been tortured by the Egyptians, will not be tortured if he were to be deported. Our country was founded upon due process, not sending individuals to countries where the likelihood of their being tortured is extremely high, diplomatic assurances to the contrary. On June 1, 2007, in the Government's Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Stay of Removal, the U.S. Government told the Court that ``substantial embarrassment could result in the diplomatic community'' if the Court were to find that Mr. Khouzam would likely be tortured despite assurances from high level Egyptian officials. Since when have we based our foreign and domestic policy on concerns about being embarrassed? We know the Egyptian government tortures people. What does the U.S. Government want from Egypt in exchange for deporting a Coptic Christian who is reportedly innocent of any charges against him? Madam Speaker, if Mr. Khouzam is sent back to Egypt, this Administration will bear ultimate responsibility for anything that happens to him.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the other side's definition of what constitutes ``open and honest.'' After all, that was their pledge to America last year: if given control of Congress, they would make it the most open and honest Congress ever. So how has it been going? They started their new openness campaign by not allowing a single amendment to be offered on legislation for nearly a month. That's right. That's right. No amendments from Republicans. Not long after that, they had threatened to clamp down on a basic right of the minority, the motion to recommit that hasn't been changed since 1822. And now that appropriations season is officially under way, more progress. The Democrats decided to take the earmark process behind closed doors and away from the public eye. Closed rules, threatening basic minority rights, secret slush funds for earmark spending. Mr. Speaker, these tactics seem rather closed and deceptive to be taking place in the most ``open and honest'' House in history.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Robert E. Clark, a decorated Captain in the United States Navy, and native of the 16th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. At a commencement ceremony later today, Captain Clark will be inducted into West Chester East High School's Hall of Fame--a deserving honor for a devoted servant of our great Nation. While a student at East High School, Clark was a scholar athlete--maintaining excellent grades while lettering in football, basketball, and track. After graduation, Clark went on to attend the United States Naval Academy--the first graduate of West Chester East ever to do so. Since graduating from Annapolis, Clark has honorably served his country as an officer in the Navy's submarine fleet. He has received several personal decorations for his distinguished service, including the prestigious Legion of Merit. I thank Captain Clark for his selfless service to our Nation, and I congratulate him on his well-earned induction into West Chester East's Hall of Fame. He has set a fine example for our next generation of young leaders to follow.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, another day, another vote on legislation that has no chance of becoming law. Everyone on this floor understands that this bill is destined to be vetoed, and we will sustain that veto if and when the time comes. But, if nothing else, today's debate is at least an opportunity to educate people on the truth about stem cell research. Supporters of embryo-destroying stem cell research would have you believe that embryonic stem cell research is the only way to go. That just is not true. Not only are there ethical alternatives using adult stem cells but these ethical alternatives are proving to be more effective than the embryo-destroying methods promoted by the bill. Adult stem cells can be derived from numerous places, including nasal tissue, bone marrow, fatty tissue, umbilical cord blood, even amniotic fluid. These adult stem cells have already produced dozens of laboratory successes and even a handful of FDA-approved therapies for humans. Meanwhile, embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce a single treatment or cure in humans. You will hear a lot of talk on the other side about how we oppose stem cell research. That's simply not true. I am a supporter of stem cell research. I support the research that actually works, the kind that treats human embryos properly, not like laboratory rats. I support the kind of respect for human life at all stages of development. The kind of stem cell research that I support is adult stem cell research. There is another thing worth clarifying in the debate. The bill under consideration today is not about legalizing embryonic stem cell research. It's already legal. It can be performed in America by anyone who wants to. The bill we vote on today is about who is going to pay for it. This bill would have millions of Americans pay for a destructive research that they have fundamental moral objections to. This bill is flawed. It was flawed the last time we voted on it. It's still flawed today. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of freedom-loving people in Burma. This week there is a delegation of leaders from Burma, ethnic minority leaders, visiting Washington. The information they bring is a stark reminder of the brutality to the Burmese people under the military junta. The terrible offensive of 2006 continues against the ethnic Karen people and others. Over 3,000 villages have been burned. There have been over 25,000 new internally displaced people in that one province. How can we turn our backs on people who are being ethnically cleansed through genocide, raped, shot, maimed by land mines and who watch their villages and food sources be destroyed daily? The U.S. and the international community must help provide more humanitarian assistance and protection for them. We need to continue to push for a U.N. Security Council resolution on Burma. The U.S. needs to renew its sanctions against dictators. We need to get direct humanitarian aid to the people. It is time to act. The people of Burma deserve to live safely and peacefully in their own land.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Mr. Sameh Khouzam. In 1998, Mr. Khouzam fled Egypt to the United States to escape persecution and torture at the hands of the Egyptian officials. Mr. Khouzam currently works in my district and by all accounts is an upstanding, contributing member of the community. In 2004, our courts gave him protection because they believed, ``it is more likely than not'' that he would be tortured should he return to Egypt. Even our State Department reports outline extensive torture in Egypt. Having personally heard stories of individuals who have suffered torture by Egyptian authorities, I firmly believe that the court has been right to prevent his deportation. U.S. officials are now prepared to ignore the court's decision and deport Khouzam based on nothing more than ``assurances'' of no torture from known torturers. Mr. Speaker, a former CIA officer stated this week on an Australian news program that sending someone like Khouzam back to Egypt is ``tantamount to condemning them to death.'' Our government has the ability to prevent his torture. Do not deport Mr. Khouzam.

Mr. PITTS

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 2560. This bill is being marketed as a ban on human cloning. However, H.R. 2560 does nothing to prevent human cloning. In fact, the bill allows for unlimited cloning of human embryos but prevents women and doctors from trying to implant one of these embryos to initiate a pregnancy. In practice, this means that embryos will be cloned, used for experimentation, harvesting, research, then assigned a death sentence. So cloned embryos would be required by law to die. Not only does this bill allow the practice of cloning to move forward, it also mandates the killing of those human embryos. The bill before us today is a ruse. It is not a ban on cloning. It is a permission to clone, and I hope no one here today will be confused about what we are being asked to do. The bill's supporters state that this would ban reproductive cloning, but this claim is highly misleading because the language does not restrict the actual act of human cloning by allowing for somatic cell nuclear transfer, a confusing and technical way of defining research cloning. The bill before us is called the Human Cloning Prohibition Ban, and you might think that it does what it says instead of the opposite of what it says. If it did what it said, I would vote for it. Part of the problem we are having is the consequence of having had no committee process to determine what the bill actually does. We have had no hearings. We have had no markups. In fact, the bill was not even introduced until last night. And now the bill that nobody has seen is on the suspension calendar. Intentional or otherwise, this is another duplicity. The suspension calendar is for noncontroversial measures, like naming post offices, not for highly controversial legislation that is a wolf in Dolly the sheep's clothing. This bill is bad policy, and so was the process by which it got here. How many times will we have this discussion? The week before Memorial Day we discussed a bill on Medicare payments that came to the House floor the same way. Yesterday, a resolution on how Congress will handle future ethics matters was introduced on the same day that it was inserted in the suspension calendar with no committee hearings. The Senate could be forgiven for concluding that the new majority promises for open government are still not being realized after 5 months. The bill is opposed by the White House. In their statement of administration policy which came out, they said that this would ``prohibit human cloning for reproductive purposes but permit the creation of cloned embryos or development of human embryo farms for research which would require destruction of nascent human life.'' That is exactly what H.R. 2560 does. It crosses a new moral line by making it a criminal act to let the cloned embryos survive. To put it directly, this bill would create a class of living human beings that must be killed under the law. Mr. Speaker, this is not progress. It is a disturbing step in the wrong direction. It should be rejected on this floor, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a leader on this issue.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to a leader on this issue, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)