Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote Nos. 392 and 391. I would ask that the Record reflect that had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 392 (Udall amendment) and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 391 (Andrews amendment). Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hefley

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the full committee chairman for bringing this bill to the floor. This bill funds a lot of critical health investments, but being a Republican, I must say that in many past years I have been very concerned about this bill. It would often have significant increased levels of funding well above and beyond the inflationary level. We would have inflation going at 2 and 3 percent, and in some of these previous Labor-HHS appropriations bills, there have been 10-15 percent funding increases. I was particularly concerned about this issue this year. We have had a significant decline in revenue into the Federal Treasury, mainly due to the recession. We have had significant expenses associated with the war on terror, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I think the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations should be commended. He has brought a bill to the floor that is a total of $138 billion, $46 million over the budget request, $3.6 billion over comparable levels of last year. I think it funds education, I think, adequately under the circumstances that we are in. And I must reiterate what the chairman has already said: We have doubled education spending over the last 8 years. Some of the other programs that I am particularly interested in, it provides the third year of the President's initiative to expand health services through community health centers. I have seen these programs in action firsthand. I think they are a very effective use of health care dollars, Federal tax dollars, in providing needed health care to some of the poorest in our country. And the chairman just made some very good points. We are the majority. We have to be the responsible adults here. If we look at the Democratic record when they were in the majority, they frequently underfunded below the authorization levels in a lot of these programs. For example, the Democratic past Labor-HHS bill back in I believe it was 1994, that year increased education spending by only 2 percent. The chairman pointed out a reduction of $3 billion in 1995. The issue here is it is easy to pass an authorization bill, but to find the dollars to fund it is always a challenge, and I think the chairman has done really an outstanding job in meeting that requirement. Now, regarding the business about the tax cuts, if we did not cut taxes, supposedly we would have more money for this bill. Well, let us look at what those tax cuts are doing. Some of the tax cuts, they are going to the child credit. These are families that are going to get more money to pay for the cost of raising their kids. It is money that is going to go right back into the economy. Then, of course, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) laid this case out very, very nicely. When we cut the rates, the majority of job growth in this country has been in the small business sector. Most small businesses pay at the personal level, and most of those small businesses, if you leave more money with them, if you tax them less, they are going to leave it in the business, and it will be easier for them to create jobs. Today we had another posting of unemployment up. I think most Americans want to see, more than funding for all of these various Federal programs going up much higher than the inflation level, would rather see people getting a job. I stand by our tax cut package. I think it was the right thing to do. It was badly needed to get this economy going. Once we get this economy going, we are going to have more money into the Federal Treasury to better enable us in the years ahead to meet the requirements of all these various programs that the Federal Government is involved in funding. I would encourage my colleagues, conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, to support this bill. I think this is a very, very good bill in the context of where we are today. We have a recession. We have a war on terror going on. We have problems in Iraq still. Yet we have a fairly good bill that increases funding for most of these critical needs areas slightly. I think it is a very responsible, mature, adult bill. I again commend the chairman.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, one of the issues about which my constituents most frequently contact me is the high cost of health insurance and the need for affordable insurance coverage. We all know health insurance premiums are increasing significantly each year. As such, many small businesses are unable to afford health insurance for their employees. Furthermore, for those who can afford insurance for their employees, rising costs make U.S. products more expensive, harming U.S. competitiveness and costing American jobs. Just last month I received a letter in my office written by a small business owner in Palm Bay, Florida. In it he wrote, ``As an independent businessman, I can only afford the most basic of health insurance policies for myself, of which premiums have gone up over 100 percent in the past two years, I might add. I sacrifice greatly to insure myself. But it is getting to the point I may not be able to afford health insurance myself.'' I know he is not alone. We have all heard similar stories. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, but the financial viability of many small businesses is being hurt by the escalating costs of health insurance. This hurts job creation and economic growth. The U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy found that administrative expenses for small health plans make up about 35 percent of total costs. This is not good for small business owners, their employees, or the American economy. Congress must address this problem, which is why I support H.R. 660, the Small Business Health Fairness Act. By passing H.R. 660 Congress will be leveling the playing field between small businesses, the self-employed and large corporations. This allows organizations of individuals and businesses to enter into an Association Health Plan (AHP). Under an AHP, small businesses can pool their resources and purchase health care similar to the way large corporations do. They can get better bargaining power in terms of costs and benefits for their employees. It gives workers, who do not have health insurance today, the opportunity to obtain health insurance coverage. Whether it is a small business, a trade association, a farm bureau, or a local community organization that is seeking to purchase more affordable health insurance, this legislation will help them. It is generally accepted that there are 41 million people in America without health insurance at any given time. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a more accurate estimate of the number of people who were uninsured for all of an entire year is 21 million to 31 million. Regardless, almost 60 percent of those individuals are employed by a small business. As health care costs increase, fewer and fewer employers and working families will be able to afford coverage, and more Americans will be without adequate health insurance. Those who work for small businesses should have the same type of access to quality health insurance that their counterparts in large corporations already enjoy. I urge Congress to pass H.R. 660. Congress must pass this bipartisan legislation to give much needed relief to American small businesses, farmers, and hard working families.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill. I am pleased that the House approved my bill last year to accomplish this very same goal. Unfortunately, we were unable to garner the votes in the Senate to enact this into law. The Death Tax Needs to Die. Along with the marriage penalty, the death tax is perhaps the most disgraceful tax levied by the Federal Government and it should be repealed. The death tax is double taxation. Small business owners and family farmers pay taxes throughout their lifetime, then at the time of death they are assessed another tax on the value of the property on which they have already paid taxes. Critics claim that we can't afford to eliminate the death tax. They are wrong. We can't afford not to permanently repeal the death tax. Family businesses spend nearly $14.2 billion a year on estate planning and insurance costs largely to avoid the death tax. Studies indicate the cost of compliance with the death tax equals the amount of death taxes received. Thus, the ``real'' cost of the death tax to business is double the tax burden. During the debate last year on my bill to permanently repeal the death tax, I asked a constituent of mine. Danny Sexton of Kissimmee, FL and owner of Kissimmee Florist, to come to Washington and share his ``death tax'' experience. Mr. Sexton, who comes from a family of florists, inherited his uncle's flower shop and was faced with paying almost $160,000 in estate taxes. This forced him to have to liquidate all of the assets, lay off staff, but salaries, and take out a loan just to pay the death tax. He also had to establish a line of credit just to keep the operation running. Danny Sexton is the face of the death tax. The death tax isn't a tax for the rich, it is a tax that hurts family owned businesses--family owned businesses that are the back-bone of this great Nation. The folks that worked in Danny's florist were not rich, but they lost their jobs because of the death tax. According to the National Federation of Independent Business more than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation and 87 percent of family businesses do not make it to the third generation. Sixty percent of small business owners report that they would create new jobs over the coming year if death taxes were eliminated. For the sake of future generations, Congress must take responsibility, do the right thing, and permanently repeal the estate tax. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the residents of Palm Bay, Florida Since 1949 the National Civic League has recognized great American cities from across the Nation. Palm Bay is among the 30 finalists that will compete for the title of ``All American City.'' An All American City is a city that has addressed community issues through the strong collaborative efforts of its citizens. It is no surprise to me that Palm Bay, my hometown for many years, has been selected as a finalist for this honor. During the 1980s, Palm Bay's population more than tripled from just 18,560 to 62,540. Then in the early '90s the General Development Corporation declared bankruptcy. Although this could have had a stagnating effect on city development, Palm Bay's grassroots rose to the occasion. Deteriorating infrastructure and poorly groomed public areas have been replaced by better roads, new parks and recreation areas, a community pool, the renewal of the U.S. 1 corridor and the continued efforts of ``Keep Brevard Beautiful'' and the Marine Resources Council. The All American City competition specifically seeks cities in which key civic projects are community and citizen driven. Palm Bay certainly has an abundance of community driven projects and organizations. These include the Volunteer Citizen Observer Program started in 1995 and the more than 100 Palm Bay Citizens who dedicate their time who assist the Palm Bay police force as volunteers. Next week nearly 100 residents of Florida's 15th district will travel here to Washington, DC to compete for the 54th Annual ``All American City'' Award. City employees, elected officials, activists, pastors, school children and other Palm Bay citizens will have an opportunity to share just a small piece of Palm Bay with the National Civic League. I commend the city and its citizens for all of the hard work that has made Palm Bay the wonderful place that it is today. I wish these delegates the best as they represent all of the great Floridians living in Palm Bay.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I find the practice of partial birth abortion extremely disturbing. It is an agonizing experience for the mother, a slow painful death for the child and is utterly unnecessary. Supporters of Partial Birth Abortions will say that these procedures are necessary for the mother, that it may be the safest procedure for some women in emergency situations. I ask them to consider the facts of the procedure. It is important to understand the procedure that we are banning in this bill. The woman is subjected to three days of slow dilation of the cervix. The feet, body and arms of the baby are delivered. Only the head is not delivered. Then the abortionist kills the child by puncturing the back of the child's neck and removing his/her brain. If the baby's head were three inches further out of the birth canal, this practice would be recognized as murder under our court system. The procedure is not in the best interest of women and even the American Medical Association has said that the procedure is ``not good medicine.'' In fact, it presents a number of serious risks to mothers. No woman and no child should be subjected to this gruesome and unnecessary procedure. In fact, this procedure is no troubling that scores of pro-choice Members of Congress have joined us in voting to ban this procedure. Opponents of this bill are attempting to add an exemption for the mother's ``health.'' I know and they know that the courts have defined the term ``health'' to include a definition of mental health so broad as to make any ban virtually meaningless. President Bush has said that he would sign a bill banning this practice. My hope is that the 108th Congress will give the President the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 for him to do just that. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing today and vote for this ban.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues of the devastating effect of sexual activity on our Nation's youth. Just today the Heritage Foundation released a new report entitled ``Sexually Active Teenagers Are More Likely to Be Depressed And to Attempt Suicide.'' In this study, Robert Rector, Kirk Johnson, and Lauren Noyes outlined the psychological and emotional aspects associated with teenage sexual activity. The data shows that there is a real correlation between teen sexual activity and depression and even between sexual activity and suicide in the ages of 14 through 17. Sexually active teenage girls are three times more likely to be depressed than their classmates who are abstinent. Sexually active boys in their teens are more than twice as likely to be depressed. Furthermore, 14 percent of sexually active teenage girls report having attempted suicide, a three-fold increase over their peers who are abstinent. This report demonstrates the value of abstinence education.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.J. Res. 4, the desecration of the flag resolution. Our Nation's flag is a sacred symbol of our country's liberties that so many men and women in uniform have fought and died to defend. As the symbol of that liberty, the flag deserves our greatest respect. To desecrate the flag raised by soldiers at Iwo Jima, astronauts on the Moon, and rescue workers at the World Trade Center is an affront to the very values it represents. Even in the past week, young Americans have laid down their lives in Iraq to protect the freedom and liberty that we enjoy here at home. It is disgraceful that people would desecrate, even burn, the flag that all of our Nation's veterans have fought so valiantly to defend. Even as American soldiers prepared for war in Iraq, there were reports of protesters defacing flags, even flags being displayed in a memorial to the victims of September 11, 2001. These acts are disgraceful. They are repugnant, and they should not happen in this great Nation. The flag deserves and demands our respect. The physical desecration of the flag is not free speech nor should it be protected under the first amendment. The amendment before us will clarify that desecration of the flag does not fall under the first amendment and will prevent the courts from making such an assertion. I urge my colleagues to support the underlying resolution. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is now the ninth time I have risen to speak against this amendment. I practiced medicine in the Army for 6 years before I was elected to the House of Representatives, and I was in the Army when President Reagan initially made his executive order stating that we would no longer do abortions in military hospitals. We in the medical care community in the military were very pleased with this. I have talked to a lot of nurses and a lot of doctors about this issue, and many of them are pro-life and they say they were very glad it was removed, but many of them are actually pro-choice but they all say the same thing to me. They say they are pro-choice, but I would never do an abortion. They say they are pro-choice, but I would never assist in an abortion. And they were all very, very happy to get this out of the military medical facilities. This would be a step in the wrong direction. It would be bad for morale. And I wholeheartedly concur with the comments of my physician colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their work on this important issue. The bill that we will approve today emphasizes the model of Uganda. Uganda has helped people avoid exposure and infection to HIV/AIDS. They have saved lives. The world can take a lesson from Uganda, including the United States. Uganda understood as a developing country working to build its way back from tyranny and exploitation it had to act to save itself. It had little money, no expertise, few resources. But Uganda had faith. Uganda had faith in God and in its people to save themselves. President Museveni asked his people to change their behavior in order to stay alive. That is not a message that is dependent on cultural interpretation. It does not require technical or scientific understanding. It is a message that gave hope and health to the general population of Uganda; and it has worked and continues to work in Uganda, as well as Zambia, Jamaica and Namibia. The bill that is before us is landmark legislation because it sets a course for what works in saving people's lives from the certain death of HIV/AIDS. It emphasizes treatment through antiretroviral therapy, care by assisting families and children affected by HIV/AIDS, and prevention by emphasizing education to help people avoid exposure. This legislation makes a very important distinction between preventive activities and intervention activities. The bill details that are included regarding prevention and other activities are intended to help people avoid exposure by reducing the number of sexual partners and, if they are adolescents, delaying sexual activity until they are married. This is a realistic and effective public health strategy to help end the grip of HIV/AIDS. This legislation does not eliminate the utilization of interventions that are intended to reduce the risk of infection, especially for specific high-risk populations. The distinction between prevention and intervention is important. I am a physician who has treated AIDS patients dying from, in many instances, an avoidable disease. We need to emphasize risk avoidance but continue to provide options for risk reduction. This approach, called ABC, is a sound approach meant for the general population to save as many lives as possible. It is a comprehensive approach to AIDS prevention that recognizes that people are different and a range of behavioral options for AIDS prevention needs to be presented. In 2 days I will be traveling to Uganda to see for myself the Uganda experience. One of the things I want to investigate in Uganda is if it is staying true to the ABC approach. Since the mid-1990s, there has been less of an emphasis on sexual behavior and more on medical solutions. In recent years, there has been a small but disturbing trend towards riskier sexual behavior, and for the first time in a decade there has been a slight increase in the national infection rate in Uganda. The Uganda ABC model of the earlier period is the one that seems to have worked the best and is the one that has the most to teach the rest of the world. That is why I am so pleased to support this bill. I know it provides real solutions and real hope to people in Africa, and that is why I am pleased to go to Uganda in 2 days to see this firsthand myself. Mr. Speaker, I commend the ranking member and the chairman for their work, and credit goes to President Bush for initiating this process.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the motion we will approve today emphasizes the model of Uganda. Uganda has helped people avoid exposure and infection to HIV/AIDS. They have saved lives. The world can take a lesson from Uganda--including the United States. Uganda understood that, as a developing country working to build its way back from tyranny and exploitation, it had to act to save itself. It had little money, it had no expertise, it had few resources. But Uganda had faith. Uganda had faith in God and in its people to save themselves. President Museveni asked his people to change their behavior in order to stay alive. That is not a message that is dependent on cultural interpretation. It is not a message that requires specific technical or scientific understanding. It is a message that gave hope and health to the general population of Uganda. And it has worked and continues to work in Uganda, Zambia, Jamaica, an Namibia. The motion to agree to the Senate amendment that is before us is landmark legislation because it sets a course for what works in saving people's lives from the certain death of HIV/AIDS. It emphasizes treatment through antiretroviral therapy, care by assisting families and children affected by HIV/AIDS, and prevention by emphasizing education to help people avoid exposure. This legislation makes a very important distinction between prevention activities and intervention activities. The bill details that included in prevention are those activities intended to help people avoid exposure by reducing the number of sexual partners and--if they are adolescents--delaying sexual activity until they are married. This is a realistic and effective public health strategy to help end the grip of HIV/AIDS. This legislation does not eliminate the utilization of interventions that are intended to reduce the risk of infection, especially, for specific high risk populations. The distinction between prevention and intervention is important. As a physician who has treated AIDS patients, dying from in most instances an avoidable disease, we need to emphasize risk avoidance but continue to provide options for risk reduction. This approach, called ABC, is a sound approach meant for the general population to save as many lives as possible. It is a comprehensive approach to AIDS prevention that recognizes that people are different and a range of behavioral options for AIDS prevention needs to be presented. In 2 days I will be traveling to Uganda to see for myself the Uganda experience. One of the things I want to investigate in Uganda is if it is staying true to the ABC approach. Since the mid 90s, there has been less of an emphasis on sexual behavior and more on medical solutions. In recent years, there has been a small but disturbing trend toward riskier sexual behavior, and for the first time in a decade there has been a slight up-tick in national infection rates. The Uganda ABC model of the earlier period, the one that seems to have worked the best, is the one that has most to teach the rest of the world. That is why I am so pleased to support this motion and provide real solutions and real hope to the people of the world. Ms. McCollum. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the following article from today's Washington Post be inserted in the Record. In Another Break With Past, Kenyans See Hope on AIDS (By Emily Wax) Nairobi.--The preacher's message to his 3,000-member congregation inside the Kenyan Local Believers Evangelical Church on a rainy Sunday was a simply one: Condoms don't protect against AIDS. The crowd responded with a ringing ``Eh,'' meaning yes, nodding as they clapped and rocked to his confident voice and his message. ``In fact, if you have sex using a condom 10 times, you will get 10 percent of the AIDS each time,'' thundered the pastor, Solomon Ndoria, wearing a mustard-colored three-piece suit and pumping his hands in the air. ``Then you will actually have AIDS. So just abstain from sex.'' One day later, Lucy Wanjiku's message to the man in her dark metal shack, standing beside her thin foam mattress, was a simple one, too. But she mumbled it. She needed cash. She had to feed her 4-year-old son. So the 30-year-old woman who usually sold African crafts was selling her body. Wanjiku, one of the many members of Ndoria's church who live in Kangemi, a Nairobi slum, had listened to her pastor's words. But she had also heard discussions at the local health clinic and seen posters downtown, and she wanted her client to use a condom. He refused, slapping her face. Then in the dark must of her room, on her cot, with her son crying nearby, they had sex, she said. Afterwards, she had enough money for pounded maize. Now she has the virus that causes AIDS. She said she believes she will die soon. The preacher and the prostitute exemplify the emotional debate over AIDS in Africa and its life-and-death consequences. As of the end of last year, an estimated 29.4 million people in sub-Saharan Africa had AIDS or HIV, according to U.N. estimates. About 3.5 million were infected during 2002, and an estimated 2.4 million people died of AIDS complications that year. In Kenya, a nation of 31 million, 15 percent of adults have AIDS or HIV, U.S. statistics indicate. An estimated 500 to 700 Kenyans will die each day this year from AIDS-related causes. Yet after two decades of outside assistance and internal debate, Kenya, like most of its neighbors, has yet to find an effective strategy for preventing the disease or for treating those who contract it. And AIDS continues to kill entire villages, to wipe out generations. When the country's first free and fair elections in December brought an end to 24 years of autocratic rule by Daniel arap Moi, many hailed it as a decisive moment not only in Kenya's political history but in its fight against AIDS. The new president, Mwai Kibaki, proclaimed a ``total war on AIDS.'' He has committed his government to help pay for the treatment of 40,000 patients and abandoned Moi's self- described ``shy'' policy about condom use, taking a stand supporting condoms in addition to abstinence until marriage. After Kibaki's election, more than 500,000 condoms were distributed in western Kenya, where HIV infection is most prevalent. Kibaki's government ordered 50 million condoms from German prophylactic maker Condomi, and Kibaki said he will now implement the country's dormant AIDS prevention strategy, which long included plans to distribute condoms in hair salons, banks, restaurants and bars in addition to health facilities. Kibaki said the government will use a $100 million ``soft'' loan from the World Bank to pay for 300 million condoms over a four-year period. Kibaki maintains that if the AIDS problem is not tackled, none of his government's other programs will matter. ``We must all come out and fight and eradicate this disease, because there won't be any point of improving the welfare of people who are going to die,'' he said last month. ``I would want us to look back and say, `That is the disease that used to kill us.' '' Anti-AIDS crusaders say they hope Kibaki continues to follow a path that diverges sharply from the practice of many African governments to keep silent about condom use and AIDS. Ghana and Rwanda, largely Christian nations, are still unclear about prevention policies. In contrast, Botswana, with its tiny population of 1.6 million and its massive infection rate of 36 percent, has been aggressive both in rhetoric and treatment. The most widely praised example in Africa is Kenya's neighbor, Uganda, where the policies of President Yoweri Museveni are credited with helping bring HIV infection rates down from 30 percent to 5 percent. Museveni set up aggressive and candid campaigns that included condom distribution and a national plan to attract aid donors to the country of 24.7 million. ``I think saving these lives is feasible in Kenya--right now,'' said Christa Cepuch, a Kenya-based pharmacist with the French medical aid group Doctors Without Borders. ``I think with political will anything can happen. If Kibaki sat down at his desk and made this happen, it would be a different country in 10 years. Uganda did it and now Kenya can, too.'' In Africa's impoverished countries, the debate over whether to tackle AIDS by trying to prevent it, through abstinence or condom use, or by treating it with expensive antiretroviral drugs, or both, is a complicated tangle that involves every level of society--preachers, prostitutes and their clients, farmers, orphans, drug companies and politicians. As AIDS drugs decrease in price and advocates around the globe lobby for more funding for their purchase, some AIDS experts say they are seeing the first signs that treatment might become affordable for poor countries. But at the moment, they say, prevention is the more pressing issue. Few Kenyans take issue with the idea that abstinence from sex is an almost foolproof way to avoid AIDS. But in a country where more than half the people live on less than a dollar a day, it's not always that simple. Because rural jobs are scarce, many Kenyans migrate to the cities for work, leaving their families behind in small villages. When spouses are separated for long periods, sexual relations outside marriage become common. Or when there are no jobs, it is not uncommon for a woman to sell her body-- perhaps just a few times in a lifetime--to feed her family for a few days. ``Let's not be so naive and so bashful as to think people are not going to have sex,'' said Wilson Ndgu, an energetic Kenyan doctor who distributes condoms at bars and in health clinics around the slums of Nairobi. ``People are having sex, so we should be promoting condoms as a way to save lives. That is the ethical and, frankly, the most Christian response.'' Most Kenyans--78 percent--practice Christianity, and most Christian denominations in Africa oppose condoms, some on the grounds that they promote sex outside marriage, others because they are a form of birth control. Only a few socially liberal church leaders have come out in favor of condom use. ``To be honest, Kibaki is in for some real serious work here. The scale of the epidemic and complete lack of response to it has created a nation where a lot of people feel they are helpless,'' said Chris Ouma, a Kenyan who is national coordinator for the Action AIDS/HIV program. ``There is a lot of education to do and a lot of working with the churches. I've never seen such prominent leaders pray for people's lives and then tell people not to use condoms.'' This All Africa Conference of Churches, with 168 members from all branches of Christianity, is torn on the issue of promoting condom use and backs a plan that tells worshipers to wait until marriage to have sex. But Kibaki is now asking church leaders to spend the first 15 minutes of every Sunday sermon preaching the policy of ABC. ABC stands for ``Abstain, Be faithful or use Condoms,'' the approach successfully adopted in Uganda and copied by other countries. President Bush, who has pledged $15 billion to help pay for drugs in Africa and the Caribbean, has made ABC official U.S. policy. The U.S. Senate approved a $15 billion bill Friday that earmarks $3 billion a year for the next five years for programs in Africa that include education about condom use and promotion of faithfulness and abstinence. Still, some church leaders refuse to support ABC, saying it goes too far. ``This issue may be tougher than ever finding affordable drugs for AIDS patients,'' said Melaku Kifle, outgoing general secretary of the All Africa Conference of Churches. ``And Kibaki is trying to take a stand by pushing the ABC policy. What will happen? No one really knows. Kibaki's leadership in the coming years will be critical.'' As times change, there are signs that attitudes may be changing, too. On the television soap opera ``Saints and Sinners,'' the characters talk about AIDS. In newspapers and on the radio, the new government has launched an ad campaign that talks about it, too. The ads say: ``Three people die every five minutes from AIDS in Kenya. What are you doing about it?'' Kenyan doctors now hand out condoms in bars and talk about prevention over warm Tusker beer. Even the national museum is addressing the issue, running an exhibit this month on how treatment and prevention improve the lives of patients. ``All of my friends say using condoms is like eating a banana with the skin on,'' said Walter Koga, 22, a jobless man who was hanging out with his friends at a barbershop in Kangemi. ``Men just won't wear them because of stubbornness. People say it's not manly. But attitudes are changing. People don't want to be diseased, suffer horribly and die. I actually thought I would never wear one and now I do. I've changed.'' As a group of Koga's friends gathered to joke about how they still don't want to use condoms, Lucy Wanjiku hovered nearby, listening. She folded her arms over her chest and rolled her eyes. She told a group of women standing nearby about a friend of hers who had asked a man to use a condom and ended up getting beaten. She wanted to tell Koga's friends to stop joking, but she didn't. Instead she went inside her dark metal shack to rest. She was too sick and weak to fight with them.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, last year the U.S. taxpayers paid $1.5 billion to fight forest fires and twenty-three firefighters lost their lives. In fact, over the past few years, taxpayers are expected to pay billions more to fight forest fires unless changes are made in forestry management. Many of the fires we have seen over the past several years could have been prevented, billions of tax dollars could have been put to better use, and dozens of lives could have been saved. Furthermore, critical forest habitat would have been saved for the enjoyment of future generations of Americans and for wildlife, including endangered species. Too many of our nation's forests continue to be damaged by out of control forest fires, insect infestations, diseases, and invasive species. Today, Federal forestry experts estimate that 190 million acres of federal forest are at risk for catastrophic wildfire. Unfortunately, current laws put too many barriers and delays in the way of properly managing our forests, meaning that these forests will remain at risk for years to come unless better management practices are implemented in a more timely manner. It currently takes several years for forest management plans to get through the bureaucratic and legal quagmire. During this delay, too many forests suffer damage from fires and insects and billions of dollars--and in some cases human lives--are lost. Last year, the President proposed a Healthy Forests Initiative to facilitate better management of forests. Bipartisan legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives, The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (H.R. 1904) to address this concern. Many of the proposals contained in this legislation were put forward during the Clinton administration but were never acted upon by that administration. Under current rules, it is estimated that federal land managers will only be able to address the catastrophic fire threat in about 2.5 million of these 190 million acres each year. This is unacceptable. In 2002, then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) included an environmental rider to allow for logging in the Black Hills of South Dakota to protect these forests from catastrophic fires. Senator Daschle recognized the dangers that these potential catastrophic fires could pose to the forests and communities of South Dakota. Under the Daschle provision all court cases to block forestry management plans in the Black Hills were prohibited. H.R. 1904 does not go nearly as far as Senator Daschle's plan. H.R. 1904 allows appeals to be made, but expedites the process so that it does not take several years to approve forest management plans. This is a common sense solution to a very serious problem. H.R. 1904 finds the middle ground between the Daschle plan, which prohibited challenges, and the current system, which allows flammable underbrush to pile up, forests to become dangerously dense, and forest fires to rage out of control while the courts are jammed with suits over forestry management plans. Through the use of environmentally sensitive thinning, prescribed burns, and other scientifically validated management practices, our nation's forests can be returned to a sustainable balance, the risks of catastrophic wildfire and disease infestations can be reduced, and habitat for wildlife will be preserved. This bipartisan legislation reforms the current forest management system so that forest management plans can be approved and implemented in a timely process while still respecting the right of public participation in the decision making process. I believe that this legislation will aid us in this effort and I support its passage.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of legislation introduced by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart): H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The parents and family of Laci Peterson have asked that the name of this bill be changed to Laci and Connor's Law. I think for most Americans, this is, shall we say, a no-brainer. People are committing acts of violence against pregnant women, and, unfortunately, in some jurisdictions there is no way to prosecute in a situation where there has been the death of the unborn baby. We are talking about babies that are wanted by their mothers. Indeed, we had a case of a military servicemember who specifically was trying to kill the baby inside his pregnant wife and succeeded in doing that. He did so on Federal property, and we had to prosecute in State court in that situation. I think this law is very, very badly needed. It is the right thing to do. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003. This economic plan will lead to the creation of jobs and stimulate our economy both in the short-term and the long-term. This plan provides much needed tax relief for seniors, families and for small businesses all with the aim of creating jobs and getting our economy going. First, as an age group, senior citizens will be the most benefited by cutting the dividend tax. Seniors are more likely than most Americans to own dividend-paying stocks, receiving 47 percent of all dividends. Since 1978, half of all dividend-paying stocks have stopped paying dividends, primarily because they are double taxed by the Federal Government. A drastic reduction in the dividend tax will (1) encourage businesses to pay higher dividends, (2) give a more dependable return on investments, and (3) lead to better corporate accountability. Many seniors took the necessary steps to provide for their retirement and double taxation of dividends hurts them and must be eliminated. Eliminating the double taxation of dividends will put billions of dollars back into the economy each year and enhance the retirement savings of all Americans. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and unfortunately they are being taxed out of business. Passage of the President's tax plan will provide small businesses with significant tax incentives to expand their operations. Specifically, the bill will boost the economy by allowing small businesses to write-off in the first year, $100,000 in new equipment purchases. Current law allows them to deduct only $25,000. This level of tax relief will lead to equipment purchases, which will in turn create jobs and increase productivity. In addition to the provisions above, other provisions of the tax bill will further benefit American families, who are hardest hit by Federal tax policies. Adoption of the President's tax plan will increase and expand the child tax credit to $1,000 per child today, instead of waiting until 2010 as is in the current law. The bill also cuts the marriage penalty, which unfairly forces married couples to pay more in taxes. Increasing the per child tax credit and cutting the marriage penalty, empower American families by letting them keep more of the money they have worked so hard to earn. This is vital legislation and I urge my colleagues, for the sake of America's workers, seniors and families, to vote yes for H.R. 2, the Jobs Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this legislation, and I want to commend the chairman and ranking member for their open-mindedness in allowing me to be a part of this process. The bill before us today is a demonstration of the American people extending the hand of compassion and hope to millions of people suffering worldwide from AIDS. The level of commitment to end HIV/AIDS demonstrated in this bill before us today is long overdue. Previous attempts to address the issue of global HIV/AIDS channeled millions of dollars into unaccountable multilateral efforts and programs that showed little effectiveness and did little to stem the death toll. H.R. 1298 reforms the status quo, ensures the most effective use of every dollar and puts new policies in place to help save lives. The bill sets a new course by focusing on real solutions, such as the model provided by Uganda. The bill requires financial accountability and opens doors to programs that have a history of doing much with little. H.R. 1298 features a strong abstinence education component that has been proven to save lives by eliminating risky sexual behavior. This is a very important point. One of the key components of H.R. 1298 is a clear focus on prevention through education. The bill promotes primary prevention by funding activities that help individuals avoid HIV infection. Instead of just working towards reducing the prevalence of HIV/AIDS, this bill seeks to help young people adopt behaviors where the risk of HIV/AIDS can be eliminated. No longer do we just seek to manage the sure death of HIV infection. This bill empowers young people to participate in a future free from the behavioral risks of contracting HIV/AIDS. The bill distinguishes between true primary prevention efforts, such as abstinence education, from intervention activities that promote condoms under the guise of prevention. The bill distinguishes between prevention services that are appropriate for everyone and preventive intervention that helps a segment of the population engaging in risky behavior. As a physician who previously cared for AIDS patients, I know that encouraging this primary prevention approach will save lives, and save money. Another key component of the bill is bringing faith-based organizations into full participation with efforts to combat HIV/AIDS. Local churches and faith-based groups promote behavior change to prevent HIV, reduce the stigma associated with HIV infection, and treat those afflicted with the disease and care for orphans. The Catholic Church alone currently cares for one in four people being treated by HIV/AIDS worldwide. Mission organizations already possess much of the infrastructure, experience, knowledge and compassion necessary to combat AIDS. They also have a history of respecting the culture and values of indigenous communities and peoples so that lasting relationships and change can occur. And faith-based groups are doing this in the most remote areas with the greatest need. Up until now, resources that could have helped the efforts of churches and faith-based approaches have been soaked up by large international special interests. My missionary friends in Africa tell me about the many hats, T-shirts and conferences that UNAIDS provides to promote condoms and HIV/AIDS awareness. Unfortunately, few real resources are provided to help prevent HIV/AIDS infection. I am personally aware of faith-based organizations that have been in- country for years, that have the support of the community, that have the support of the government and have brought people of different faiths together around strategies that are culturally and age- appropriate, but yet have been refused resources through USAID and UN- funded programs. Or they have been given a deal to promote condoms or get nothing. H.R. 1298 will open up new avenues to fund powerful faith-based efforts that save lives in the poorest and most remote places. I strongly encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be an original cosponsor of the bill, and I again commend the chairman, the ranking member and their staff for crafting what I feel is a very, very good piece of legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pitts amendment. According to the World Health Organization data, abstinence education programs work to reduce the premarital sex rate for Ugandan males, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania earlier said, in 1989 60 percent to 23 percent. For females the decline was 53 percent to 16 percent. The proportion of males reporting three or more sexual partners fell from 15 percent to 3 percent. With each successive sexual partner one has, their probability of contracting HIV goes up proportionally and by reducing the income of sexual partners, increasing the age of sexual debut, by increasing the incidence of abstinence before marriage, faithfulness in marriage, the rate in Uganda declined by half. I think this is a very modest amendment. I actually think we should be putting substantially more money than he is proposing into abstinence education because it has been shown scientifically to be the most effective way and cost-effective way to prevent the spread of this disease. I strongly urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Pitts amendment, a very well-thought-out amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. As one of the 250 cosponsors of H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, I rise in strong support of this bill and against this amendment. The right of law-abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms is guaranteed in the second amendment. Those behind these lawsuits have one aim, and that is to undermine the guarantee in the Bill of Rights. As we speak, anti-second amendment organizations are shopping around for sympathetic judges who will be willing to rule that firearms manufacturers are liable for individuals using guns in the commission of crimes. While virtually every lawsuit brought against gun manufacturers has been thrown out of court, it is only a matter of time until a liberal judge, sympathetic to the anti-second amendment lobby, rules in their favor. The aim of these suits is to tie up firearms manufacturers in court and raise the cost of firearms to those who purchase them legally. The only end result of these lawsuits would be a larger underground market in firearms. Defenders in these lawsuits will say it is about justice for crime victims. The true impetus behind these lawsuits, however, is to bypass the Congress, the will of the American people, and to enact de facto gun control by using the courts. Gun control advocates have come to realize that they have very little chance of moving their anti-second amendment agenda through Congress, so they have turned to excessive lawsuits and the courts. This legislation not only will not protect gun distributors who do not follow the strict laws regarding firearms; it will also not protect manufacturers that sell defective products. It merely protects firearms manufacturers who are abiding by the law from frivolous lawsuits designed to bankrupt legal, law-abiding gun manufacturers. No one would think of holding GM responsible for an accident caused by a drunk driver, or Louisville Slugger responsible for someone using a baseball bat in the commission of a crime. So why should law-abiding firearms manufacturers be punished for criminals using their products illegally?

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this supplemental--funding to provide for our troops and homeland security. This supplemental will support the men and women of our Armed Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom and help provide humanitarian relief for the people of Iraq. The brutality of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime continues to be revealed through the brave efforts of the men and women of our Armed Forces. Saddam's death squads--his enforcers--go into cities to ensure that the people not rise up against him. They execute civilians. They go door-do-door, take children from their homes, and hold them hostage under the threat of massacre. Saddam Hussein's regime has a documented record of gassing, torturing, raping and executing its own people. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from this Iraqi regime stands alone--because, as President Bush has said, it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place under the leadership of a merciless dictator. What if we had refused to take the necessary action to stop this Iraqi dictator from building his weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, and nuclear? What if we had allowed him to supply these weapons to international terrorists? My friends, not long ago we came to the Floor and voted to allow President Bush to use every tool at his disposal to stop this threat to the American people and the world. We must make sure that our military has everything it needs to do the job that they have been asked to do. Under difficult circumstances, our troops continue to make good progress toward our objectives of ending the Iraqi regime, freeing the Iraqi people, and disarming the country of weapons of mass destruction. Our forces are fighting well, with overwhelming force, and have defeated every threat they have encountered. It is our obligation to make sure that they are fully supported in this endeavor. I urge my colleagues to vote for this supplemental.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to salute a great American, Private Michael Russell Creighton-Weldon. Private Creighton-Weldon of Palm Bay, Florida, was killed this past weekend while serving in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was one of the soldiers killed by the suicide bomber driving the taxi. Private Creighton-Weldon was in Company A, the 27th Infantry, Third Division, out of Fort Stewart, Georgia. My prayers and condolences are with Michael's family during this hour of loss. My family and my staff grieve with them in honor of Michael. President Lincoln was once quoted saying that we as a nation ``should have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us, to the end, dare to do our duty.'' Michael dared to do his duty, and in so doing, he gave the ultimate sacrifice for our continued freedom. We owe him a debt of gratitude that we can never repay. This morning, I had the honor of speaking to Michael's mother, retired U.S. Army Sergeant Major Jean Weldon. She said that Michael, or Big Mike as his family affectionately called him, was a hero to his family and now he is a hero for America. Mrs. Weldon also had great praise for the Palm Bay Police Department and the mayor for the support that they have provided her during this time of grieving. Specifically, they have had to deploy officers to her house to keep the press away from her and her family who have been very grieved by the constant approaches of the press. And I think America's press should be aware of this that one grieving mom would like some space and that they should be sensitive to this all across the Nation because I am sure her experience is not unique. While sadness comes with the loss of each soldier, we can have faith in our military commanders and in our Commander in Chief. Coalition forces continue to make good progress towards our objective of ending the Iraqi regime, freeing the Iraqi people, and disarming the country of weapons of mass destruction. It was in this cause that Michael gave his life, and it is a worthy cause. Secretary Rumsfeld said this past weekend that there are difficult days ahead. We know this in Palm Bay, as we are experiencing it firsthand. To the extent that the Republican Guard poses difficulties, which we expect them to, there will be dangerous days ahead, Mr. Rumsfeld went on to say. Baghdad may not be easy, but the outcome is certain and at some point the Iraqi people will end up fearing Saddam Hussein and his regime less and they will end up anticipating liberation and freedom more; and it will end and it will end successfully. The true nature of the Iraqi regime is being revealed by what we see. Brutal treatment of POWs; use of human shields to protect military assets from attack; the torching of oil fields which are the future of the Iraqi people; false reports about coalition attacks on civilians, mosques and cultural centers; lies about Iraqi adherence to Geneva Conventions which they have blatantly violated; Feyadeen infiltration of regular Iraqi forces to prevent surrender and defection; using false acts of surrender in flagrant violation of the laws of war, and using them to attack coalition forces; and, yes, the use of suicide bombers, one of whom took the life of a great American, Michael Russell Creighton-Weldon. We all in the 15th congressional district and in our Nation salute Michael for the service he provided our Nation and the sacrifice he made. We join with his mother, his father, his entire extended family in extending our condolences, and our prayers are with them and our Nation and our troops in the field as we continue in this cause.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I practiced defensive medicine for 15 years before I was elected to Congress. Defensive medicine is extremely costly. The way it works is very simple. The patient comes in. You think the patient has something. And then you think of all the other things that it could be and how you could be sued if you missed those things, so you order more and more tests. You may say, well, this is just one doctor speaking anecdotally, but actually this very issue was studied scientifically in California. They looked at the reforms put in place in California and its impact on charges in the Medicare plan. They discovered that over time after the cap on damages went into place and the threat of very, very excessive damages went away that charges for two diagnostic codes, the two codes they looked at were unstable angina and myocardial infarction, went down and there was no increase in morbidity and mortality. In other words, quality was maintained while charges went down. This study was published in 1995 in the Journal of Economics. It was done by economics professors at Stanford University. They argued that the high cost of litigation cost the Medicare plan billions of dollars a year in unnecessary procedures and tests. They further went on to say that it cost, in 1995 dollars, our health care system $50 billion a year. Today that figure is estimated at over $100 billion a year. Mr. Speaker, this is not just an issue of access. We are going to hear about access from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller). He is going to talk about the trauma facility in Orlando, Florida, being closed down because of this problem. This is not just an issue of high cost. This is an issue of the uninsured. As the costs go up because of the high cost of litigation, more and more people are pushed out of the insured market into the uninsured category. We all say here that we care about the uninsured, the people who cannot afford health care, but this is impacting them. This is impacting our competitiveness in the global marketplace because all these costs of litigation get transferred into the costs of health care that get transferred into the costs of our products and services as we compete in the global marketplace. If we pass this bill and if the other body passes it, the President has said he would sign it, it is going to allow more people to get access to health care, it is going to reduce our costs through the Medicare plan, and we may ultimately be able to better afford more services through Medicare like prescription drugs. And, yes, it will help our businesses and industries to be more competitive in the global marketplace. This is a good rule, it is a fair rule, and this is an extremely important bill. I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I want to thank my colleague from Georgia, a former practicing physician in the practice of OB/GYN for his leadership on this very, very important issue. This is obviously a national crisis. It has regional features to it. California is not in the throes. They passed their malpractice reform. We have got a real problem in Florida. Indeed, the Level 1 trauma center at Orlando Regional Medical Center is about to close down. The principal reason for that is they cannot get enough neurosurgeons to support the trauma center. One of the principal reasons they cannot get enough neurosurgeons to support it is that they cannot recruit physicians into the State of Florida and one of the biggest reasons for that is the astronomical cost of medical malpractice in the State of Florida. This is becoming an access issue. In the central Florida area of Orlando and the east central coast, Brevard County, where I live, you have upwards of 2, 3 million people in this region and we are going to lose one of the principal trauma centers. So people are going to suffer. People are going to die because of the medical malpractice crisis that we are facing in this Nation today. I just want to address one very, very important issue about this whole matter. This is an incredible cost to our economy. It is an incredible drag on our whole health care system. There was an outstanding study. It was published in the Journal of Economics in 1995 out of California. They looked at the costs for two diagnostic codes, unstable angina and myocardial infarction, pre-California MICRA reforms, and then post-California MICRA reforms and showed a dramatic reduction, $500 million in the State of California for just those two diagnostic codes just because of those reforms. It clearly shows that defensive medicine is real. I know defensive medicine is real, you know defensive medicine is real, the other OB/GYN in the room knows defensive medicine is real. We practice defensive medicine every day. These researchers out of Stanford University were able to show the incredible cost. This is in 1995 dollars. They extrapolated that it costs health care in our Nation $50 billion a year, and I assume it is now $100 billion a year. Madam Speaker, the Medicare program could save billions of dollars a year nationwide if we can pass medical malpractice reform. Those are dollars that can best be used to provide prescription drug benefits for seniors and other enhanced benefits, or extend the solvency of the Medicare program. This is a horrible, horrible crisis that we have today that is hurting the taxpayer. It is hurting all Americans. Indeed, this high cost of medical malpractice ends up costing us more money to just provide health care, and that in effect is a drag on our whole economy and it affects our ability to be competitive in the world marketplace. We must pass this bill. The other body needs to pass this bill. It is good for America, it is good for health care in America, and certainly it would help us in the area I live to be able to keep our trauma center open and operating. I want to thank my good friend from Georgia and my good friend from Texas for their leadership on this very, very important issue.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good, fair rule. It allows an honest debate of the issues. As many of my colleagues know, I am a physician. I still see patients once a month at the veterans clinic in my congressional district, and I practiced medicine for 15 years before I was elected to the House of Representatives. I took care of a lot of patients with paralysis, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. I saw firsthand on a daily basis the hardship those people and their families went through. Indeed, I wanted to share with all my colleagues that my father died of complications of diabetes disease. I had six uncles. When I was growing up as a kid, one of my favorite uncles was my Uncle John. He died of complications of Parkinson's disease. So if there were evidence to support the position being held by some people in this body and some people in the scientific community that there was great potential from therapeutic cloning, I would be the first to admit it. I would be the first person to acknowledge it. I could not deny it because it would be evident in the medical literature. But the fact of the matter is, the evidence is not there. What we are debating today is the ethical parameters on the whole issue of regenerative medicine. For decades, doctors have had at their disposal surgical techniques to help people and make them well. They have had medications, drugs that they could use to make people well. And in the past 20 years, they have been making use of something called regenerative medicine using what is called stem cells. This bill, contrary to what some people say, does not ban stem cell research. It does not ban embryo stem cell research. It specifically bans the creation of cloned human embryos. We voted on this very issue. We debated this issue on the floor of this House a year and a half ago. It was July of 2001. The progression of science is something that we need to include in this debate. I went through the medical literature just about the last 12 months; and I have about 88 studies showing adult stem cells in humans and that they have tremendous potential, that they are actually finding application in the treatment of 45 different diseases. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could produce a study that shows that therapeutic cloning in humans has potential, but there is not even one study. Indeed, I wish I could introduce a study that shows that therapeutic cloning in animals has potential; but, likewise, there is not a single study even in animals. It has been tried in mice, and it has not worked. Therapeutic cloning has never been done. We are debating here on the floor of the House therapeutic cloning as though therapeutic cloning exists, as though it is around the corner. Let us get realistic here. People are going to come to the floor, and they are going to suggest that we have to hold out therapeutic cloning because it is the only hope for these people. We are funding NIH $27 billion a year. We have thousands of researchers all over the Nation doing all kinds of research using all kinds of modalities, surgeries, therapies, medications; and this regenerative medicine issue is one little slice of what researchers are exploring to help these people with these conditions. We are essentially debating a subsegment of that. And some people will come down here and hold that up as though it is the only thing out there. Let us get realistic. It has never been done. They tried it in mice, and it was published in ``Cell.'' For those who do not read the scientific literature, this is one of the most prestigious journals that cell biologists read. I will quote from the study. It says: ``Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders.'' They tried therapeutic cloning in a mouse model of disease and it failed dismally. So not only can we not produce a study that shows that it works, we can produce studies that show that it does not work. I think the time has arrived for us to do the right thing. This is a moral and ethical decision. We are talking about scientists creating human embryos for the purpose of exploiting them and destroying them, and there is no scientific evidence today that this is justifiable. Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record the studies I referred to above. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to commend him for his leadership on this very, very important and critical issue. As I mentioned in the debate on the rule, the science on so-called therapeutic cloning is going nowhere, so why do all of these scientists say that they want to allow embryo cloning? Why do all of these biotechnology companies say they want to allow embryo cloning, even though the chairman of Geron, Thomas Okarma, is quoted on the issue of therapeutic cloning, and he is quoted as saying, ``The odds favoring success are vanishingly small, and the costs are daunting. It would take thousands of human eggs on an assembly line to produce a custom therapy for a single person.'' He goes on to say, ``This process is a nonstarter.'' So if this therapeutic cloning is such a nonstarter as Okarma says, why do the people in the biotech industries, why do all of these scientists say we have to allow this, we have to make this legal? What is the rationale behind all of this? I will tell my colleagues what they want to do. They want to create human models of disease. Research scientists today in America, if they want to do research on Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, they buy mice and they buy rats that have been engineered to manifest that disease, and what they want to do is they want to create human beings that are engineered to manifest these diseases. Now, can we imagine that? They want to have shelves with diseases on them filled with human embryos and sell them for a profit to research labs, and that is where we are going with this issue. Some people get up and ridicule this concept of a slippery slope, but that is exactly what we are on. Because I will tell my colleagues what is next. The artificial womb technology is there. It is available to us today. One can take these embryos and put them in these baths and one can grow them well beyond the embryonic stage, and that will be the next thing we will be debating and talking about in this Chamber if the positions held by some people who want to allow embryo cloning are allowed to move forward. These are the same exact arguments that occurred in this House on fetal tissue research 10 years ago; and people got up and claimed, we have to allow this, it is the great potential of the future. It turned out to be an absolute bust. It was a disaster. It went absolutely nowhere. Therapeutic cloning is going nowhere. It has been a year and a half since we originally debated this issue. I placed a mountain of evidence before this body here showing that the adult stem cells are working out great, the embryo stem cells are going nowhere, the cloned stem cells are going absolutely nowhere. So why are we still here? Why are we debating this issue? It is because there are people who want to create human models of disease that they can sell for a profit. It is an abomination. Vote for this bill. Vote against the substitute.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I again want to commend him for his work in this area and his eloquent statements on the floor. I rise in very strong opposition to this substitute, and I encourage all my colleagues to vote against it and to vote in favor of the underlying bill. Let me address, first out, one of the issues that seems to be implied by some of the discussion that I have heard so far, and that is, these embryos that are created through somatic cell nuclear transfer process are somehow not embryos or they are cells or they are cheek cells or they are stem cells. I am a scientist, a doctor. I am not an expert in this area, but I know a fair amount about it. I did research in molecular genetics as an undergraduate. I am a physician. When a person does somatic cell nuclear transfer they are creating a human embryo. Indeed, President Clinton's Bioethics Council has said that, and President Bush's Bioethics Council has said that, a human embryo resulting from the nuclear transfer process is a human embryo. It is contrasted from a human embryo created by sexual reproduction, which is a unique embryo; whereas when we create a human embryo through somatic cell nuclear transfer, we are essentially creating an identical duplicate or twin. So let us do away with that issue here and now. This is very, very clearly a human embryo. That is what the gentleman from Pennsylvania wants to allow to be created for research purposes. What will happen if we do that? What will happen if we go down that route? I contend that a lot of things will happen that I think are very, very concerning. Number one, we are going to have a lot of research labs that will need eggs. Where will they get the eggs? They will have to get them from women. How do we get eggs from women? Well, we give them drugs that cause a phenomenon called superovulation. We have to do periodic ultrasounds to make sure they do not develop ovarian cysts, and they can get depression from those drugs; and then once the eggs are ripe, we have to give the woman a general anesthetic to harvest the eggs. And we will have these research labs that are going to need these large quantities of eggs, and this is why these biotech executives say this is a nonstarter in terms of developing so-called therapeutic cloning. The logistics of this are just unimaginable of how we would execute something like this. One important thing I want to say, if we have all of these labs generating these eggs, we are going to have unscrupulous physicians implanting one of these in a woman, and we are going to usher in the very thing that the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Florida say they are against. They say they are against reproductive cloning, but our own Justice Department says there will be no way to police this. We will have all of these embryos in all of these labs, and the only way to prevent it is to stop it from the very, very beginning. Might I also just reiterate, adult stem cell research is moving along very nicely. We have heard some very impassioned comments about Parkinson's disease. I want to quote from Dennis Turner, who had his Parkinson's disease treated successfully with adult stem cells. We cannot even produce one research study in a rat where we can cure Parkinson's disease with embryo stem cells or cloned stem cells. But I have got a real live human being here. He says, they were not fetal cells, they were my cells, so I would not have to take any anti- rejection medications the rest of my life. Dennis Turner previously could not even hold a newspaper, and now he is hardly on any medication at all. The adult stem cells are working great. I say to my colleagues this alternative, this substitute, is unnecessary and unethical. We do not want to go down the path of creating human life for the purpose of exploiting it in the lab and then destroying it. Vote no on this substitute. Vote yes on the underlying bill.