Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I would say to the gentleman, yes, that is correct.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I rise obviously to speak in support of this rule and in support of my underlying bill and in opposition to the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by just talking a little bit about the basic science of all of this. What is shown on this poster to my left is a normal fertilization of an egg. Normal human cells have 46 chromosomes; the egg has 23, the sperm has 23. When united, they become a fertilized egg, which then begins to differentiate into an embryo. Here is depicted a 3-day embryo and then a 7-day embryo. Under the technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer, you take a cell from somebody's body. This could be a skin cell, depicted here. You extract the nucleus out, which is shown here. Then you take a female egg, a woman's egg. You remove the nucleus that was in there, which is shown here being discarded with the 23 chromosomes, so you have an enucleated egg. Then you implant that nucleus in there. This becomes a clone of the individual who donated this cell. From this point on, it begins to develop like a normal embryo. Now, there will be some discussion today, I anticipate, where people will try to assert that this is not a human embryo; that this somehow is, and this is somehow not a human embryo. I studied embryology in medical school. I am a physician. I practiced medicine for 15 years. Indeed, I brought my medical school embryology textbook, and I would defy anybody in this body to tell me what the science behind making the assertion that this is not a human embryo. There is absolutely no basis in science to make such a claim. This technique, which we are banning in humans, is how Dolly was created. They took a cell from the udder of a sheep; then they took a sheep's egg, removed the nucleus, took the nucleus out of this cell and put it in that egg depicted right there. Then it was put in tissue culture, where it became a more developed embryo, and then it was implanted in another sheep to create Dolly. Now, to assert that a human embryo created by the somatic cell nuclear transfer technique is not a human embryo is like saying this was not a sheep embryo. Well, what is this? This is Dolly. To say that a human embryo created by nuclear transfer technology is not a human embryo to me is the equivalent of saying this is not a sheep. Now, I have, I think, some pretty good quotes to support my position. This is from the Bioethics Advisory Commission. The Commission began its discussion fully recognizing that any efforts in humans to transfer somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo. So they support my argument. They have to, it is science, with the apparent potential to be implanted in a uterus and developed to term. I have another quote from one of the Commissioners, Alex Capron. ``Our cloning report, when read in light of subsequent developments in that field and of the stem cell report, supports completely halting attempts to create human embryos through SCNT,'' or somatic cell nuclear transfer, ``at this time.'' Now, I just want to point out, this is not a stem cell debate. There will be people who will try to make this a stem cell argument. My legislation does not make it illegal to do embryonic stem cell research. I would also like to point out this is not an abortion debate. Judy Norsigian is shown here quoted, she is pro-choice, she is the co-author of ``Our Bodies, Ourselves for the New Century'' with the Boston Women's Health Collective. ``There are other pro-choice groups that have supported my position that we do not want to go to this place, because embryo cloning will compromise women's health, turn their eggs and wombs into commodities, compromise their reproductive autonomy, with virtual certainty lead to the production of experimental human beings. We are convinced that the line must be drawn here.'' Finally, I have a quote from the National Institutes of Health guidelines for research using human pluripotent stem cells. They deny Federal funding for research utilizing pluripotent stem cells that were derived from human embryos created for research purposes, research in which human pluripotent stem cells are derived using somatic cell nuclear transfer, the transfer of a human somatic cell into the human egg. Now, there are some people who have been approaching me saying why are we having this debate now? Well, there is a company in this country that has already harvested eggs from women. They want to start creating clones. So the issue is here now. If we are going to put a stop to this, the House, I think, needs to speak and the other body needs to take this issue up as well. Additionally, this is a women's health issue. There was one article published, I believe in the New England Journal. The way they harvest these eggs is they give women a drug called Pergonal that causes super- ovulation. Then they have to anesthetize them to harvest the eggs. They typically use coeds. It is a class issue, who is going to volunteer for this procedure? Poor women? Let me tell Members what: The study showed that women who were exposed to this drug have a slightly higher incidence of ovarian cancer. So this is not a trivial issue, in my opinion. It is a women's health issue. I believe the rule that has been crafted is a very fair rule. It will provide for plenty of debate.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time. We are going to have a lot of debate and I assume some of the arguments that the gentleman has put forward will be debated further in the course of the afternoon. I will just point out one or two quick things. The procedure that they would like to make legal is illegal in several European countries. There is really only one that currently allows it, and they have come under a lot of criticism. I think by passing my bill, we actually bring the United States into conformity with a lot of thinking that is going on in the world. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) mentioned a ``study'' where paralysis had been reversed. I do not know where he got that reference from. There was a story in the press of a rat that had paralysis and a lot of the press reported it as embryonic stem cells. It was not embryonic stem cells, it was fetal stem cells. It was not even a study, it was a scientist who took some video footage. It was not peer reviewed. Nevertheless, it was reported in the press as a ``study.'' This is not about embryonic stem cell research, it is about whether or not we are going to carry this whole issue one step further, no longer using the excess embryos in the clinics, but now creating embryos for research purposes.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me in closing just say I think this is a very fair and equitable rule. We allowed the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) a full hour to debate the merits of his issue. I believe we will get a full airing of the essential debate. I think the essential debate is, do we want to take the next step on this embryo stem cell issue, and take the Nation to the place where we are going to be creating embryos, no longer using so-called excess embryos, but we are going to start creating embryos. I am a physician. I saw patients just last week. I have treated patients with Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, diabetes. My father had diabetes. To hold out reproductive cloning as a solution to these problems is pie in the sky. It does not even exist.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to discuss the issue of reproductive cloning. It does not exist. It is a theoretical construct. I was just on the phone with a physician colleague from Chicago last night, who spoke to the world's most eminent embryologist at Stanford University, and I am quoting from him when he says, ``It is pie in the sky.'' One other thing I just want to clarify: My colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), said the somatic cell nuclear transfer creating a cloned embryo is not the creation of life. I think to put forward that notion is totally absurd. That is like saying Dolly is not alive. We are talking about creating human embryos for destructive research purposes, creating them. We are not talking about using the embryos in the IVF clinics anymore, in the freezers, the so-called excess embryos; we are talking about creating them for research purposes. I believe that is a line we do not want to cross. We will have that debate in a little while. I encourage everyone to vote yes on this rule.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I will not yield.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I only have 2 minutes.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify a few things about my legislation. It is a pretty short bill. It has four pages and I would encourage anybody who has any uncertainty about this issue to take the time to read it. I specifically want to refer them to section 302(d). It says, under Scientific Research, nothing in this section restricts areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this section. What they are talking about there is somatic cell nuclear transfer to create an embryo as was used to create Dolly. I go on in this section to say, nothing specifically prohibiting, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants or animals other than humans. Basically what this means is all the scientific research that is currently going on today can continue. What cannot continue is what people want to start doing now. It is not being done, but they want to start doing it; and that is to create cloned human embryos for the purpose of research. Now, there are people putting forward this notion that if we were able to go ahead with this, all these huge breakthroughs would occur. I want to reiterate, I am a doctor. I just saw patients a week ago. I have treated all these diseases. I have reviewed the medical literature. It is real pie in the sky to say there are going to be all these huge breakthroughs. I have a letter from a member of the biotech industry, and I just want to read some of it. It says, ``I am a biotech scientist and founder of a genomic research company. As a scientist and cofounder and officer of the Biotechnology Association of Alabama that is an affiliate of the Biotechnology Industry Association, BIO, the group that is opposing my language,'' he says, ``there is no scientific imperative for proceeding with this manipulation of human life, and there are no valid or moral justifications for cloning human beings.'' Mr. Speaker, I can state that is indeed the case. I further want to dismiss this notion that has been put forward by some of the speakers here in general debate that a cloned human embryo is somehow not alive or it is not human. There is just literally no basis in science to make that sort of a claim. I did my undergraduate degree in biochemistry. I studied cell biology, and I did basic research in molecular genetics. I have a quote from another scientist that I would be happy to read. ``There is nothing synthetic about cells used in cloning.'' This is a researcher from Princeton. He says, ``An embryo formed from human cloning is very much a human embryo.''

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee for yielding time to me. I certainly commend him on his command of the issues. I think all those years on the Committee on Science have served him well. This is a complicated issue; but to distill it down to its simplest essence, we have two choices before us: the underlying bill, introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and I and others, which bans the creation of human embryos, either for the purpose of trying to produce a child or for destructive research purposes; or the approach being proposed under this substitute, which is to essentially sanction and register those people who want to create embryos for research purposes, embryos that will ultimately be destroyed. I would challenge everyone on the critical question of does the slippery slope exist. We had a debate in this body several years ago on the issue of funding embryonic stem cell research at the NIH. Many people rose to speak in support of funding embryonic stem cell research. They said some interesting things. Here is a quote from our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi): ``Let me say that I agree with our colleagues who say that we should not be involved in the creation of embryos for research. I completely agree with my colleagues on that score.'' Here is another quote from the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey): ``We can all be assured that the research at the National Institutes of Health will be conducted with the highest level of integrity. No embryos will be created for research purposes.'' Here is a quote from the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Johnson: ``Lifting this ban would not allow the creation of human embryos solely for research purposes.'' I have other quotes. Yet, that is where we are today. We are having a debate on whether we should now create human embryos for research purposes. We have had a lot of discussion about whether or not these embryos are alive, whether they have a soul. The biological fact is, and I say this as a scientist and as a physician, that they are indistinguishable from a human embryo that has been created by sexual fertilization. Indeed, if we look at all the prominent researchers in this area, they say that it has the full potential to develop into a human being. I think, and rightly so, the majority of Americans, and we have seen the numbers, they have been put up here for everyone to see on display charts, about 86 percent of Americans say, We do not want to take that step. It is one thing to talk about stem cell research using embryos that are slated for destruction. It is a whole separate issue to say, we are going to now sanction an industry that creates human embryos.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. The Space Station is in orbit. We have research going on up there right now. As we all know, NASA recently recorded significant cost overruns. The administration responded appropriately by canceling three elements. I think there are some serious problems with the proposal the administration has put forward. I certainly agree with the sentiment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) that we need to work with our European allies to see if we can get at least the crew return vehicle and the module built. The proposal the gentleman from Indiana is putting forward essentially says we have to stay within the cap, and we already have a cap, but we have to go ahead and build all those elements. That is like your spouse comes home and says, Honey, we are over budget. We cannot screen in the porch and buy that new car. Then you were to respond, we are going to stay on budget and we are going to screen in the porch and buy that new car. Your spouse might turn to you and scratch her head and say, Gee, honey, how the heck are we going to do that? This is in many ways a very clever amendment, but it is a totally unworkable amendment. I believe it is just another attempt to try to kill the Space Station program. I would strongly encourage all my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to try in the next hour to cover a host of issues that are being hotly debated today in this country. I mainly want to focus on the issue of human cloning. Next week, the House of Representatives will take up a piece of legislation I authored with my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, H.R. 2505. This bill cleared the Committee on the Judiciary and is now scheduled to be taken up by the House on Tuesday. I wanted to talk this afternoon about that bill, about a competing piece of legislation that has been introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), H.R. 2172, focus on some of the differences between these two bills in terms of the way they deal with this issue of human cloning. And then I would also like to just go over some of the basics of sexual reproduction versus cloning reproduction and as well some of the issues associated with the stem cell debate, because the issue of human cloning and the issue of stem cells do overlap somewhat. This chart I have next to me here on my left highlights some of the differences between these two bills. I would just like to go over that briefly. The legislation introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) is H.R. 2172. I think theirs is also entitled the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. It allows the creation of human embryos through cloning technology to be used specifically for research and then for destruction. It allows research cloning, but I want to highlight there are no therapies that exist today in humans, nor is there an animal model. I say this because this form of cloning is referred to as therapeutic cloning. While it may be true that someday it may be possible to do this type of cloning they are talking about and use it for a therapeutic intervention in a patient, there are no known therapies today available for human cloning. What their bill essentially is is a moratorium on implantation. I will get into that in a little bit more detail. Implantation is when the embryo actually seats itself in the womb and begins the process of further differentiating into a fetus. I say that their bill is a moratorium because they have a 10-year sunset on their bill. Their bill goes away, would have to be reauthorized in 10 years, and so I think it could legitimately be called a moratorium and not a real ban on so- called reproductive cloning. I just want to highlight that all creation of cloned embryos is reproductive cloning. To say that their bill is a reproductive cloning ban I believe it is not really scientifically accurate. Really what it is is an implantation ban. The outcome of their bill is that it would create a 10-year prison sentence if it were enacted into law and up to a $1 million penalty if there was an attempt to implant a cloned human embryo. It would sanction the creation of embryos in the United States. It would make it legal. There is a lab up in Worcester, Massachusetts, that I understand has harvested eggs from female donors specifically for this purpose. The Greenwood alternative would essentially give them the green light to go ahead. What is, I think, potentially tragic about this bill is it would be the first time ever a Federal law would mandate the destruction of human embryos. Under the provisions of their bill, at least the way I read it, the embryos that they would create would have to be destroyed in the scientific research process because it makes it a crime to actually implant any of those embryos. And it would encourage the creation of cloned embryos which I think would increase the likelihood of reproductive cloning, the thing they are trying to ban. The reason for that is really quite simple. If you are allowing laboratories all over America that are doing research in this arena to produce large quantities of cloned human embryos, then it would only be a matter of time before one of those embryos would be implanted in a woman. That would occur within the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship. Indeed, if one of those implanted embryos took and the woman became pregnant, that pregnancy essentially would be protected by the privacy provisions of Roe v. Wade. I think it is a piece of legislation that increases the likelihood of occurring exactly what it claims to be trying to ban. I want to contrast that with the legislation that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and I have introduced, H.R. 2505. It bans human cloning for any purpose, both the creation of cloned embryos and implantation of those to initiate a pregnancy. I think this is the most effective way to prevent so-called reproductive cloning, trying to actually bring a cloned baby to birth. It does not affect embryo research or other cloning techniques. I want to highlight that, but before I do that, I want to just get back to this issue here. Why is it so important and why is the Congress taking this issue up? For one reason, I already said this, there is a lab that wants to start producing cloned embryos immediately and using those embryos to harvest stem cells for research. But, as well, the attempt to produce Dolly the sheep, which most people have heard of, the first mammal that was cloned, it took 276 tries to create Dolly the sheep. Many of those attempts ended in no pregnancy essentially, a miscarriage, but there were many, many sheep that were born with very, very severe birth defects. Additionally, of all the species that have been cloned so far, and this includes cows, goats, mice, all of the animals, the babies that are born are very, very large. They have very, very large placentas. They are 15, 20, 30, 50 percent above normal birth weight. They have very, very enlarged umbilical cords. This is not well understood, but clearly if anybody attempts to do this with a human, it would be extremely hazardous to the woman who would be trying to give birth to a cloned human being. As I said, many were born with very severe birth defects when they tried to produce Dolly, particularly heart and lung defects. So there are many issues here. The health of the mother could be threatened in trying to produce a cloned human baby. Additionally, the baby that was produced, if it had serious birth defects, who would be responsible for the health care of that baby? Who would be responsible for paying all those medical bills? So it is universally agreed, we need to prohibit this. The best way to prohibit it, I believe, is to pass H.R. 2505. Let me also add, and there has been, I think, some misinformation or disinformation that has been distributed on this issue. Our bill does not ban much of the research in this area. Specifically, I want to read directly from the bill. Section 302(d) of the legislation states that ``nothing in this section restricts areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this section, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.'' So much of the research that will be done can continue to be done. You just cannot produce human embryos. I make this point and I am stressing this point for a reason. There are people opposed to our bill who are falsely saying that our legislation would essentially shut down this whole area of cloning research. That is just not correct. If you actually read the legislation, it can proceed. So what would be the outcome if our bill becomes law? Number one, similar to their bill, it creates a 10-year prison sentence and monetary penalties. Obviously, as I stated, it prevents the creation of cloned human embryos as well as any attempt to try to induce pregnancy. I want to also point out that it conforms with the currently existing law with many of our European allies. There are some people falsely claiming that there are many countries where this is legal right now and it will, quote, all go overseas. In point of fact, that is not the case. Indeed, I spoke to a group from the European Parliament just this week. One of the members sent me a letter following our meeting, Dr. Peter Liese, who is a physician like myself, an internist like myself. He wrote to me pointing out that in a lot of European countries, and I am quoting him, like Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Portugal, Ireland, Norway and Poland, any kind of research which destroys embryos is prohibited by law. In point of fact, the approach to this issue that is being suggested by the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), the only country in the world where that is currently allowed is the United Kingdom, in England. And, indeed, it is a fact that they have come under a lot of criticism within the community of Europe because of their extremely liberal policy. And even in their country, they have a prohibition on doing any experimentation on embryos once the embryo has developed the early signs of a nervous system. So they at least have some restrictions on what can be done, whereas the Greenwood-Deutsch approach would set the United States apart from the rest of the world as having the most liberal approach to the creation of human embryos through the process of cloning and then essentially mandating that these cloned human embryos be destroyed. I just want to cover a couple of important points in terms of the terminology associated with all this and some important facts as well. Embryo stem cells, which I will get into in more detail later, which can be used for research as everybody knows, there are no clinical applications of embryo stem cells today. We have heard a lot of rhetoric about the tremendous potential, quote-unquote, but there are no clinical applications using embryo stem cells today. They were discovered in 1998, and the issue and debate in Washington is on whether or not we should have Federal funding. No attempt has been made, nor to my knowledge is it being considered, to make this illegal in the United States, embryo stem cell research. The debate we are having in this city is whether or not the Federal Government should pay for it. It is very similar to the debate as to whether or not the Federal Government should pay for abortions. It has been a consensus here in this city amongst Democrats and Republicans that being that abortion is a very controversial issue, that the Federal Government will not fund abortions. This is a very, very similar debate. It has been felt by many people that doing destructive research on human embryos is unethical and immoral. Therefore, perhaps maybe it should be made illegal that the Federal Government should not fund it, and that is the debate today, should the Federal Government start funding this research. I want to point out that adult stem cells, which are being held out as a potential alternative to embryo stem cells for research purposes, have been successfully used in more than 45 clinical trials. I have been following the literature on this recently. The applications have been really, really, many. They have been used successfully to ameliorate the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, obviously to treat a whole bunch of bone marrow disorders, leukemias, anemias, used successfully to treat cartilage defects in kids, combined immuno- deficiency syndrome in kids, and this is going on today, using adult stem cells. Actually, it has been going on since the 1980s, and it receives all types of Federal funding. There are absolutely no restrictions today on adult stem cell research, nor is it considered unethical. Now, just quickly, there are many types of cloning. You can clone cells, and this has been done with skin cells to do skin grafts, to create tissues, monoclonal antibodies, recombinate proteins. It has been going on since the 1940s. Our legislation will not affect this. This will be able to continue. Various types of non-cellular cloning, such as cloning DNA, proteins, RNA, which is ribonucleic acid. This has been used in genetic therapy. The production of recombinate insulins, DNA fingerprinting, diagnostic tests for forensics, fingerprint testing, parental tests, all have been going on since the 1980s. It is not affected by our legislation. People are falsely claiming that it will prohibit all forms of cloning. This is not true. What it does is it makes illegal this procedure right here, and I am going to get into this in more detail, somatic cell nuclear transfer. This procedure has been around for many, many years, but in 1997 it was done to produce Dolly the Sheep. The question today is are we going to start cloning human embryos in the United States and in the near future. Now, this poster I am showing here gets into the basics of how cloning is done. On the top here we show normal reproduction, where an egg unites with a sperm. Human beings, our cells have 46 chromosomes. It is actually 23 pairs of chromosomes in your body's cells, the cells of your skin, the cells of your liver. The body goes through the process in the ovary and in the testes to produce 23 chromosomes in each one of these, so rather than having 23 pairs, you have the individual chromosomes. Then in the process of fertilization, the 23 here unite with the 23 here to produce a new human being. This is how each of us gets started, and the diagram shows the single cell fertilized egg, a 3 day old embryo shown here, and then a 5 to 7 day embryo. Now, in the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, what is done is you take an egg, and this is what they did with Dolly the Sheep. They extracted the nucleus with all of the chromosomes out of the egg. There is an alternate technique where you neutralize the nucleus. So you create an egg with no genetic material in it. Then they went in the case of Dolly, they got this from a duct cell, and this just represents any cell in the body, and you extract the nucleus out of that cell. Then you take the nucleus and you put it in to the egg, and the egg begins to divide and forms an embryo, shown here. Now, I want to highlight a couple of important points. When you go through this process, you create a unique individual, because you are reshuffling the chromosomes, and that is how each of us ends up with our own personal uniqueness. In this situation here, you are creating a genetic duplicate of the individual that you have gotten this nucleus out of. The other important point is biologically, ethically, morally, there is nothing different between this form and this form, other than this form is a genetic duplicate of the person you got the nucleus from. Indeed, if I were to do this procedure and extract the nucleus from any person, the baby that would be created here would be an identical twin of the person that you extract the nucleus from. Now, this is the world's most famous clone, Dolly the Sheep. And just to reiterate how it was done, you had a female sheep, they extracted an egg from that sheep. They removed the genes, the nucleus out of that sheep, and created an egg that had no nuclear material in it. In the case of Dolly, they got her nucleus from another sheep's udder and they put it in that egg. They cultured the embryo for a while, and once they were assured it was growing properly, they inserted it into the womb of a surrogate mother, essentially a third sheep, and, bingo, you get a clone. Now, this diagram just shows the normal process in the human where an egg is produced from the ovary. High up in the fallopian tube is where the fertilization occurs. You get cell division, first into a two cell stage of embryo development, then a four cell stage, and then it goes to an eight cell stage called an uncompacted morula, and then that body of cells shrinks down to a compacted eight cell morula, and then you get further differentiation into an embryo. This is what we call implantation, when it actually adheres to the lining of the womb begins to actually differentiate into a fetus. This diagram just shows the continuation of that process. This is a four week old embryo, a six week old embryo. It is in this stage here where they want to extract embryonic stem cells to do a lot of the stem cell research. Once the baby is born, if you extract cells from the baby or the umbilical cord blood, or from an adult person, and use stem cells from either of these sources, that is called adult stem cells. There is no destruction of the person when you extract stem cells there. But when you extract stem cells here, you essentially destroy the embryo. That is why it is called destructive embryonic stem cell research. Now, the reason myself and many others are very optimistic that adult stem cell research, which is much less ethically and morally controversial than destructive embryonic stem cell research, is because we have been able to get bone marrow cells to differentiate into bone marrow adult stem cells. These are adult stem cells extracted from the bone marrow to form more marrow, bone, cartilage, tendon, muscle, fat, liver, brain or nerve cells, other blood cells, heart tissue, essentially all tissues from bone marrow. They have been able to extract adult stem cells from peripheral blood in your circulation and been able to get those differentiate into bone marrow, blood cells, nerves. They have extracted stem cells from skeletal muscle and got them to differentiate into more skeletal muscle, smooth muscle, bone, cartilage, fat, heart tissue. They have extracted adult stem cells from the gastro-intestinal tract and successfully been able to get them to differentiate into esophagus, stomach, small intestine and large intestine or colon cells. Placental stem cells, adult stem cells in the placenta, have successfully been differentiated into bone, cartilage, muscle, nerve, bone marrow, tendon and blood vessel. They have actually extracted stem cells from brain tissue and been able to get them to differentiate into all of these types of cells. I say this just to simply make a point. There are lots of people claiming that destructive embryo stem cells research is so critically important, we have to do it. Adult stem cells research is very, very promising. Indeed, I believe it is much more promising, because embryonic stem cells, if they were implanted somebody to treat them, would be rejected by the immune system of a patient who received those cells, whereas if you extract adult stem cells from the patient themselves, from their marrow or from their peripheral blood, then there are no tissue rejection issues. So not only are you overcoming the ethical and moral concerns, but you are as well overcoming an important scientific concern. Now, advocates for embryonic stem cells argue that the embryonic stem cells multiply much more and you can get them to grow much, much more in tissue culture. That indeed is true. The adult stem cells do not duplicate as often. They do not live as long in the lab as the embryonic stem cells have successfully done. And while on the surface that may sound good, a lot of the research with embryonic stem cells show when you implant them in animals, you get the same phenomena; the cells continue to grow, and they essentially form tumors. So the very argument that researchers are putting forward that these cells are more robust and they grow and grow and grow, is actually a significant clinical problem if you are ever going to use them in treating patients with disease. They are going to have to somehow get these cells to stop duplicating. Otherwise, they will form tumors or cancers in the patients that they are putting them into. Indeed, it is my personal opinion that embryonic stem cell research will never, never turn out to have the kind of clinical applications that people are claiming that it will. Indeed, I believe that the future is in adult stem cells for all the reasons I just outlined. There is genetic compatibility; there will not be tissue rejections for patients; there are not the problems with them duplicating over and over again so we will not have the concerns about them forming tumors; and, as well, obviously, there are no ethical or moral objections on the part of the public. Mr. Speaker, I do want to assert that our legislation does not get into this issue of embryonic stem cell research. Heretofore, embryonic research has always centered on the issue of these embryos that are in the freezers in the IVF clinics that are so-called excess embryos that are so-called destined for destruction. Now, some people, myself included, argue that that is not necessarily the case. The reason these embryos are in the freezers is because the fertility experts that keep them there have a lot of their patients come back years after they have had a baby by IVF technology and they say they want to have another baby, so that is why the embryos are in the freezer in the first place. As well, there are people that want to adopt these embryos out. There is the adoption agency in California, Snowflake, that is actually doing this. I had the opportunity to see three babies that were born through this technology of adopting embryos. But the debate has always been centered on those embryos in the freezers and that they are destined for destruction, supposedly, and, therefore, it is ethically and morally okay to use them in research protocols that essentially destroy them. But human cloning, as it is currently contrived and being proposed, takes us as a Nation in a whole new ghastly and horrible direction, and that is in one of creating embryos for destruction, for destructive research purposes. The morality and the ethics of this I think are totally different. We have never as a Nation ventured into this area before where we are saying we are going to create embryos now purely for research purposes to be destroyed. We have that before us today. We have it before us now. It will be before this body, the House of Representatives, next week. We will have two alternatives. Members of this body can choose the direction that is supported by me and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), which is to say we are not going to go in that direction. We are not going to have human cloning, the creation of embryos, human life at its earliest stages, specifically just for research purposes and for destruction. We are going to say no to that procedure. As well, we are going to say no to allowing those embryos to be implanted in a woman for the purpose of generating a pregnancy, a baby, a human being. Members of the body will have a choice, though. They will have another bill before them. The bill I spoke of at the beginning of this Special Order, the Greenwood-Deutsche bill, H.R. 2172, and their bill specifically allows the creation of human embryos through cloning technology to be used specifically for research purposes and destruction. Our bill says, no, we do not want to move in that direction. It is not necessary. It is morally and ethically wrong, and it will ultimately, if we move in the direction that they are proposing, it will ultimately take us to the place where we are creating embryos in such quantities that eventually we will have attempts made at creating babies, creating human clones. Or, the body can choose to support and approve H.R. 2505, the bill that I believe very, very strongly is the morally and ethically correct way to go. I believe this is a critical juncture for our Nation. The whole arena of biotechnology is exploding. We have had the human genome project, and we are moving very, very rapidly to a place where there can be many new breakthroughs in science and technology. Many of these are very, very good, but some of these I believe are extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous, and are morally and ethically wrong. To say that we as a Nation are going to allow, permit, even encourage the creation of embryos, human embryos for destructive research purposes I think is extremely, extremely bad policy. It would put the United States in a position where it would have the most liberal policy on this issue in the world. Our bill I think puts us in the right direction where we are saying we are going to allow the good science to proceed, but we are not going to take this ghastly or grizzly step. Now, before I close, I want to say one additional very important thing, and my colleagues are going to hear this from some people, that if we do this, if we pass this bill, if this bill is signed into law and, by the way, it has received the support of the Bush administration, they have indicated that they will support the bill of myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), that this technology will just somehow go overseas and the cloning will proceed there. In response to that I want to say a couple of important things. Number one, I think we have a moral and ethical obligation to do what is right within our own borders. To say that something bad is going to happen overseas, therefore we should not bother making it illegal here is absurd. I mean, nobody would suggest repealing our laws against slavery just because slavery currently exists in the Sudan. That would be, of course, reprehensible. Nobody in their right mind would propose that. So I think the obverse certainly applies, that we would never want to say, no, we do not want to pass good legislation to make something that is morally and ethically wrong, you would never want to do that because it may happen somewhere else. I think that is a totally unjustifiable argument. Another important point in this arena is this: I think the world does look up to the United States, and I think if we can pass a strong bill in this arena other countries will follow suit. Certainly, they will be encouraged to do so. An important provision of our bill which I did not mention is the prohibition on importation. There are some people who would like to repeal this provision and essentially allow the creation of clones overseas and in the Bahamas, Mexico, whatever country, and then the stem cells or whatever material people are wanting to extract from those clones, part of their destruction could then be brought back into the United States. I thought this was an unacceptable situation so we have language in the bill barring the importation of clones or products from clones. Lastly, I want to just cover a few important points. I have talked a lot about the morality and ethics of this; and they will say, well, you cannot legislate morality. We hear that all the time. I would counter that everything we do in this body is rooted in morality and ethics. We were debating earlier today the housing bill. Well, why do we have a housing program? Well, we have a housing program because when all of that got started during the New Deal there were a lot of people who thought it was morally and ethically wrong to have millions of Americans who were living well living next to people in squalor, without homes, with substandard housing, and so we began those programs. We have the Social Security program, I believe, because most people feel it is morally and ethically wrong to allow senior citizens who do not have the ability to save during their working lifetime to live in abject poverty. All of our laws, laws against murder and rape, are rooted in morality and ethics. This is just one more example. It is ethically and morally wrong. Finally, let me close by just saying to all of my colleagues in the House, and I have heard this from some Members, why are we getting into this issue? As I stated at the outset, we are getting into the issue because we have to get into the issue. There is a company in Massachusetts that is preparing to begin the process of creating human embryos. As I understand it, they have harvested eggs from women donors, they have the eggs, they want to do the sematic cell nuclear transfer technology, begin creating clones, and then extracting from those embryos stem cells for research purposes and then destroying those cloned embryos. So, Mr. Speaker, the time is now. We need to speak on this issue as a body. The Congress needs to speak on it, the President needs to speak on it, and I believe we should stand with the vast majority of Americans. A poll that I have seen shows that 86 percent of the American people feel that it is wrong to create embryos specifically to be used for research purposes and then destroyed. Eighty-six percent of the American people feel that this is the wrong thing to do. Let me just add again, and I have said this earlier, I know there are many people, particularly many pro-life people, several of the Republican senators I know have gotten up in that body and spoken on this issue, that feel that we should allow the destructive embryo research on these excess embryos in the freezers in the IVF clinics, so-called excess embryos. This bill does not address that issue. If this bill becomes law, that research could proceed and, indeed, that research actually can proceed in this country today. The debate is exclusively over whether or not the Federal Government should fund that research. So I think we are headed as a body to a very, very critical point. Medical technology has been evolving rapidly in the United States for years and years and years, and we are at a precipice. We are at the edge of a tremendous decision. I think the right decision is to pass this bill, H.R. 2505, the Weldon-Stupak Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001. It is supported by the President of the United States; and the Senate, the other body, hopefully, will take the bill up and pass it as well.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is my intent to withdraw this amendment, but I rise on the floor to speak on this issue and engage the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means on a colloquy on this extremely important issue. On January 17, 2001, the Department of Treasury proposed a regulation requiring all banks located in the United States to report to the Internal Revenue Service the amount of interest paid to nonresident aliens who are individual depositors in these banks. I have a very, very deep concern about this proposed initiative. The interest payments in question are not subject to U.S. tax. This additional reporting requirement for banks will not further any U.S. financial interests in collecting revenues from foreign depositors, nor, in my view, is this requirement an appropriate means to accomplish any other public policy purpose intended to be served by the proposal. This regulation will impose significant costs on the Nation as a whole. The proposal is in conflict with a longstanding objective of the Department and the Congress to encourage nonresident aliens to deposit their money in U.S. banks so that those funds can in turn be used to foster growth and development in this country and in the communities served by these banks. For 80 years we have been encouraging foreign deposits in U.S. banks. I am concerned that adoption of this IRS proposal would place U.S. banks at a competitive disadvantage relative to banks of our trading partners, and will result in the significant withdrawal of foreign deposits in U.S. banks. Indeed, as we are reducing taxes in an effort to put more money into our economy and stave off a recession, the IRS is proposing a regulation that could cause a much larger amount of capital to flee our economy. Furthermore, I would like to point out to my colleagues that I am in possession of a letter from Americans for Tax Reform supporting this amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his insights. It is my intent now to withdraw the amendment, and I am certainly looking forward to working with the gentleman in the months ahead on this very, very important issue. I know for Florida bankers this is an area of major concern. If the rule, as intended, were fully implemented, it could really hurt in particular minority communities that rely on these community banks for loans.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to the United States Congress, I practiced internal medicine for 15 years, including treating many patients with diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease. For that reason, I was very interested in this issue of stem cell research. I have reviewed the medical literature on this issue. Today, most of the people advocating for the use of embryonic stem cells are bench researchers who like to use them because they tend to proliferate very nicely in the U.S. culture. That very same property makes them very problematic in using them in clinical applications. There is today the use of adult stem cells in treating diseases. There is no use of embryonic stem cells in treating any diseases. Indeed, there is not even an animal model where we can take a rat with a disease and treat it with an embryonic stem cell. Using embryonic stem cells in clinical applications is very problematic for the very same reason that the bench researchers like to use it, the cells tend to proliferate and behave like malignancies. It is not only ethical to use adult stem cells, it makes the most sense, and it is where the research money should be going.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gutknecht amendment. I practiced medicine for 15 years, internal medicine. I treated diabetes, heart disease. I wrote a lot of prescriptions, 100 to 200 prescriptions a day. Most of the criticisms that have been raised by this amendment I think can be worked through and solved. What this really boils down to is there are millions of senior citizens in the United States who cannot afford their prescription drugs, and, for many of them, going to Canada or doing a mail order arrangement is a very nice solution to the cost problems. To say that this is so dangerous, to me, I think, is a little bit of a red herring. In terms of the appearance language, as I understand it, that is the standard in the law as it currently exists. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) was just following the current standard in the law. This amendment will help a lot of people. The majority of seniors have a prescription plan that is paid for by their previous employer, so this is not going to affect them. But, for those in need, and I used to take care of those people, this can be very, very helpful.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it took 15 years in Brevard County to develop this formula and this agreement. This amendment would set back years of work. I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to keep the faith that has been established between the Federal Government and all of these communities throughout the country. The provisions, the language that the chairman and the ranking member have put in this bill, I think, are very wise in grandfathering the existing programs under the current formula; and I would encourage all of my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment, which removes the protections in the bill for existing projects and allows for contracts the government has signed with communities across the Nation to be broken. The Tancredo amendment singles out existing beach renourishment, storm damage prevention projects for special adverse treatment. This amendment would cause serious harm to a project already underway in my district, Brevard County. The Federal Government caused most of the erosion along the beaches in Brevard County when they constructed the Federal inlet in 1953. This inlet was to create Point Canaveral and a facility for the U.S. Navy so that they could take part in testing of their ballistic missile program. Indeed, one can say the Federal inlet in Brevard County was part of our national effort to win the Cold War. Studies have been completed by the Corps of Engineers, the county, independent experts and, yes, even the U.S. Department of Justice and all have found the Federal Government largely at fault. In fact, the Justice Department settled a case brought by over 300 coastal property owners because they knew the Federal Government was guilty. That agreement calls for this project to be completed. There are serious environmental issues here as well. Brevard County beaches are home to the largest concentration of nesting and endangered sea turtles in North America. Ten percent of the entire sea turtle nesting population in North America lays its eggs on these beaches. Throwing a roadblock in front of this project will further threaten this endangered species and contribute to more habitat erosion. In short, the formula that currently exists is the proper formula, and I believe that this amendment would do serious harm.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 161. It is fitting that we take a some time today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to remember those who paid the highest price of freedom. Five years ago, on June 25, 1996, the lives of five families in my congressional district were irrevocably changed by a horrendous act of terrorism. Five service members from Patrick Air Force Base were taken from their loved ones and from our community. It has been a long five years for the loved ones of these men. I hope they can find solace in the fact that last week a federal grand jury indicted fourteen people suspected of carrying out this terrible act. I will do all that I can do to help bring those who committed this vicious act to justice. I call upon the U.S. Department of Justice to do all that they can to place a high priority on this. These five men were: Capt. Christopher J. Adams, he was engaged to be married. Master Sgt. Michael Heiser, who was also engaged. Capt. Leland ``Tim'' Haun, was a husband and stepfather. Staff Sgt. Kevin Johnson, turned 36 on the day of the blast, and was the father of three. Airman 1st Class Justin Wood, was only 20 years old and was working on his college degree. H. Con. Res. 161 resolves that: ``The Congress, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, recognizes the sacrifice of the 19 servicemen who died in that attack, and calls upon every American to pause and pay tribute to these brave soldiers and to remain ever vigilant for signs which may warn of a terrorist attack.'' Known to us as Capt. Adams, Master Sgt. Heiser, Capt. Haun, Staff Sgt. Johnson, Airman 1st Class Wood, and to their families and loved ones as Christopher, Mike, Tim, Kevin, and Justin, these men gave their lives in defense of peace and liberty. They must not be forgotten. Our nation owes them a debt of gratitude. I salute each of you.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1753, introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) on May 8, 2001, designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 419 Rutherford Avenue in Roanoke, Virginia, as the M. Caldwell Butler Post Office Building. Pursuant to the policy of the Committee on Government Reform, all Members of the House delegation of the Commonwealth of Virginia are cosponsors of this measure. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to a former Member of this institution, M. Caldwell Butler. Like many young men of his generation, Mr. Butler served as an officer in the United States Navy during World War II. After completing his military service, Mr. Butler graduated from the University of Richmond and later received his law degree from the University of Virginia. He began his career in public service in the Virginia House of Delegates, serving from 1962 until 1972, where he served as minority leader. Mr. Butler was subsequently elected to the United States Congress in 1972, where he served the people of the Sixth District of Virginia for 10 years. Mr. Butler was a member of both the Judiciary and the Government Operations Committees during his time in the House. After retiring from Congress, Mr. Butler continued in his service to country and community by serving as a member of the board of directors of the John Marshall Foundation and on the board of trustees of the Virginia Historical Society. Mr. Speaker, it is a fitting tribute to name a post office in Roanoke, Virginia, after the distinguished gentleman who represented that city and who selflessly served the interests of his constituents in both the State house and in Congress for so many years. I urge our colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.