Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in support of the rule, and I rise in support of the underlying bill. For those who claim that they need more time to read this, this is basically the same product that the President sent over requesting several weeks ago. It has been analyzed and reanalyzed. And to contend that we need to reanalyze this further I think is disingenuous. We have a very serious problem in this country. There are terrorists in our country, right now. They have come over here in many instances fraudulently, on student visas or other types of visas; and their intent is to do us harm right here in the country. There are people sympathetic to the terrorists who raise money in this country to support terrorist activities. Essentially all of these people are people from these countries in the Middle East who are either terrorists themselves or sympathetic, and they take advantage of the liberties that we have in this country in order to do us harm. I believe that this bill is a very carefully crafted bill. For example, there is a lot of concern about grand jury secrecy. In order for a prosecutor to share with CIA or FBI the grand jury secrecy content, it has to pertain to a terrorist action. They cannot just blithely share information with CIA, unless it has some bearing on the activities of these terrorists. Furthermore, there is a provision in the bill that if there is any inappropriate information that is shared, that the citizen could pursue recourse in the courts. The long and short of it is I think this bill is badly needed. I think it is something the American people will support. Most of the people in my congressional district are prepared to see some of our civil liberties modified in order to enable us to better or effectively fight these terrorists. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment shifts $60 million from title II of the Ryan White CARE Act to title I of the Ryan White CARE Act. What my amendment does is to recognize that fully funding of the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, or ADAP, should receive highest priority. This is a question of life-sustaining drugs versus programs and other services for those with AIDS. One thing we do know, programs and services are of little use if AIDS patients do not have access to life- sustaining drugs. We have all been visited by those who run the ADAP programs in our States expressing concerns about the shortfall in funding for this critical program. We know that last year hundreds of AIDS patients were unable to access basic lifesaving medication not in Africa, but here in the United States. As I have shared on this floor before, as a practicing physician prior to coming to Congress in 1995, I provided medical care to hundreds of HIV/AIDS patients. I was one of only two physicians in my community that took care of more than 400,000 people who provided care for AIDS patients, and I know how critical access to life-sustaining drugs can be. After Medicaid, ADAP is the single most important Federal program for Americans living with AIDS and HIV. ADAP is the component of title II of the Ryan White CARE Act that provides AIDS medications to Americans living with HIV that have no other source of medical coverage. According to the National Organizations Responding to AIDS, or NORA, the Federal-State partnership in title II ADAP has significantly contributed to the decline in AIDS deaths since 1995. NORA, which is comprised of 175 organizations concerned about AIDS, recommends that a $124 million increase over last year's ADAP appropriation is necessary to ensure that every American infected with AIDS is provided access to life-saving AIDS medications. The House appropriations bill funds about half of this shortfall. The ADAP working group wrote: ``We will absolutely be in very serious difficulties if this appropriation isn't raised.'' Mr. Chairman, a lack of the needed $60 million above what is currently in the House bill means more than 5,000 Americans with HIV, on top of those already on the waiting list for ADAP, will not have access to the important life-sustaining combination drug therapies. Allowing Americans with HIV to stand on waiting lists for access to HIV medications is simply not acceptable. Every State, territory, congressional district, and individual living with HIV with no other access to AIDS medication is dependent on ADAP. Women and those in minority communities living with HIV-AIDS disproportionately rely on ADAP for their AIDS medications. My amendment closes the $60 million shortfall in ADAP. Unlike ADAP, title I is limited and only serves 51 cities across the country. One of those cities, San Francisco, receives twice the amount per AIDS case as every other city in the country. While title I services provide support for some AIDS patients, not all of these services have the same life- saving impact as ADAP. Also, while the majority of the programs funded through title I Large Cities Program are worthwhile, many of them are not as critical as the ADAP program. Also of concern is the fact that the Senate recently asked the HHS Inspector General to review some of the very questionable programs that these funds are being used to support. I have received some of these reports on these questionable programs, and I think any reasonable person would conclude that ADAP should receive higher priority. It is clear to me that with the shift in funding, there is plenty of room to accommodate important title I programs likes Primary Care, while shifting $60 million to purchasing life-sustaining drugs. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of my amendment. The failure to shift this funding will leave 6,400 individuals, primarily women and minorities, waiting in line for life-sustaining AIDS drugs. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments and his willingness to work with me on this issue. His points, I think, are very well taken. I personally have been very grieved over the years that I have worked here to see the tremendous amount of money that we spend on HIV and the relatively minimal amount of money we spend on autism. Actually the number of people with HIV and AIDS is about twice the number of autism, but if you look at the people who are actually falling into the AIDS category, it is about the same for both diseases. What is particularly grievous is that many private insurance companies do not cover the care that these kids need.

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

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

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses the silent epidemic that is hitting our Nation's children at an alarming rate. Autism is the most prevalent developmental disorder in America. A couple of decades ago, autism struck a few children out of every 10,000. Today it hits as many as 1 in 250. Over 500,000 Americans are autistic. My amendment increases funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program by $40 million. This will provide States with funding for early diagnosis and intervention for children with autism and other developmental disorders. Early diagnosis and intervention is critical in helping these children reach their greatest potential. For point of reference, it is important to note that the number of Americans suffering from autism is more than half the total number of Americans living with HIV and AIDS. However, you would not know this from looking at the budgets of CDC and NIH. Last year, the CDC spent $12 per person for every person with autism. Conversely, CDC spent about $800 per person for every person with HIV-AIDS. Children are diagnosed with autism through no fault of their own, and we spend almost nothing to figure out why they are autistic. We have an opportunity to provide $40 million for autism early intervention. My amendment shifts $40 million from CDC's HIV prevention account to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. Even with the adoption of my amendment, CDC's HIV prevention budget receives an $80 million increase. I am concerned about some of the activities that are being funded by the CDC. If the CDC can fund questionable activities, it says to me there is too much money in that account. I believe that shifting $40 million of the $120 million increase to assist lower income families would be a better use of these funds. What type of questionable programs am I talking about? I ask Members to weigh these activities against helping lower income parents with their autistic children. Some of the questionable programs receiving taxpayer assistance include recently in St. Louis, Missouri, the mayor had to get $50,000 worth of offensive billboards pulled down. Why? Because they were too offensive for the community. They were paid for with CDC's HIV prevention funds. On August 21, there was a workshop where people could come and learn about sex techniques and share stories about their sexual experiences and turn-ons. This was funded through the CDC with funds from Stop AIDS Project, San Francisco. On August 23, there was a GUYWATCH in San Francisco, a program for homosexuals under the age of 25 where they can come and ``meet other young guys.'' Also several television ad campaigns across the country funded with Federal tax dollars have been pulled because they offended most viewers. If people want to sponsor and attend such programs, that is their business. However, if they want to use taxpayer dollars for it, I think we need to look into it and weigh it against other priorities. Most reasonable people would say we have other more important priorities. Prior to coming to Congress in 1995, I treated hundreds of AIDS patients. I was one of only two physicians in my community of more than 400,000 who took care of these AIDS patients. I have been at the bedside of dying AIDS patients. I have gotten up in the middle of the night to provide medical care for them. I have compassion for them and their needs. I would not be offering this amendment if I did not feel the cause required it. I believe that a $80 million increase rather than a $120 million increase should be more than enough for this program. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for not insisting on his point of order. Mr. Chairman, I do not plan on asking for a recorded vote on this amendment because I understand there is a very delicate balance here; and I have another amendment that I will probably ask for a recorded vote on. But I just raise the point to say that the accounts where I am trying to move money out of, there is one particular account where I think there has been a fair amount of money spent very unwisely; and the account that I am trying to put this money into I think is a very good use of the limited resources that we have. That is why I seek to offer the amendment.

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the base bill before us. The committee has done a good job of balancing various interests before it. I am pleased that the committee has significantly increased the conservation title of the bill but has done so in a manner that does not jeopardize the rest of the agricultural needs of our Nation. Let us look at what the base bill does, H.R. 2646. It includes an average of $1.285 billion per year in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program or EQIP, plus an additional fund of $60 million per year to address water issues. It increases total acreage in the conservation program to 39.2 million acres. It allows an additional 1.5 million acres to be added to the Wetlands Reserve Program. It provides $500 million over the life of the farm bill to eradicate the backlog and provide for new enrollment in the Farmland Protection Program. It increases funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, or WHIP, from $25 million per year this year to $50 million a year by the year 2011. It increases enrollment in the grasslands reserve program to 2 million acres. The ranking minority member was quite accurate when he said this is a green bill. There are good provisions that continue to move us forward in this bill in the whole arena of conservation. I joined the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and other Members the last time we considered the farm bill 5 years ago in restoring cuts that have been made in the conservation title. That was a good thing to do then and that was good policy. The bill before us continues in that responsible plan. The amendment before us I think raises some serious concerns. It raises some financial concerns. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) raised some serious concerns about the possible serious adverse consequences associated with the Kind amendment on our budget. We have just approved a $50 billion program to provide defense needs, disaster needs, to address airline concerns. We are now talking about an even larger package to get the economy going again, something in the range of $75 billion. I think we need to proceed very cautiously. The Kind-Boehlert amendment, although maybe well intended, will mandate additional spending and will leave less room for dealing with potential economic problems that could arise for our farmers. I join the Florida Farm Bureau in supporting the base bill and opposing the Kind-Boehlert amendment. The base bill has the support of the Florida Association of Conservation Districts and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. The Florida Farm Bureau opposes the Kind- Boehlert amendment, and I urge my Florida colleagues to join me in supporting the work of the Committee on Agriculture and to vote against the Kind-Boehlert amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include with my remarks a letter from the Florida Farm Bureau. Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Gainesville, FL, September 27, 2001. Hon. David J. Weldon, U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC. Dear Representative Weldon: Congress will be taking up H.R. 2646, the Farm Bill, next week and we recently sent you a letter relaying our support of the bill. However, the section of the Farm Bill that deals with conservation has received a lot of attention in the media recently and there's an effort underway by Representative Kind to offer substitute language to the bill which is based on his legislation, H.R. 2375. On behalf of our members I would like to relay to you our support of the House Agriculture Committee-passed conservation language and provide you our concerns with H.R. 2375. First off, let me say that H.R. 2375 does make an effort to increase funding for technical assistance and other important conservation programs. However, the increased funding does not necessarily mean that Florida producers will be able to access the added funding. Several requirements illustrated in the bill prohibit many of our producers from being eligible for conservation funds and the additional funds are carved out of other parts of the bill which is already stretched to meet the needs of production agriculture. To elaborate on our concerns with H.R. 2375, I offer this: H.R. 2375 prohibits a producer who is subject to an environmental permit under the federal Clean Water Act from receiving cost-share assistance under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. This provision is not acceptable given that pending revised clean water rules dealing with CAFO's and AFO's could subject a large majority, if not all, livestock producers in Florida to regulation. This provision would keep a large percentage of our dairy and poultry farmers from being able to access cost-share funding for conservation practices. H.R. 2375 would push an unmanageable level of funding into the Department of Agriculture for conservation programs and this increased funding does come at a cost for farmers in other regions of the country. Without an adequate framework in place, this money will do little to improve the environmental quality for our working lands resulting in the wasteful and inefficient use of precious taxpayer dollars. H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001, increases conservation funding 75 percent above the current baseline. To fund environmental programs proposed in H.R. 2375 we will have to raid funds already allocated in other important areas of the bill. Politically this is not the right avenue to take and we should not cause a situation where sectors of the agriculture industry will be trying to benefit at the detriment of others. The Kind bill makes only modest gains in Florida's level of conservation funding because a large percentage of the funds go to programs such as Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and these programs are not widely utilized by Florida's producers. H.R. 2375 would place restrictions on producers that have nothing to do with conservation. For example, this legislation directs the Secretary to consider the extent to which livestock producers medicate their animals in selecting contracts under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Such restrictions would render these programs useless for mainstream agriculture. H.R. 2375 contains extensive provisions for forestry yet none of the central forestry organizations support this legislation. The Society of American Foresters, the National Association of State Foresters, the National Council on Private Forests, the National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges, and the American Forest and Paper Association oppose this bill. They oppose H.R. 2375 because its forestry provisions cannot be implemented. The legislation is vague, restrictive and not based on sound science. We realize that H.R. 2646 is not perfect when it comes to the conservation section but we believe that it is a more practicable and realistic approach for Florida's farmers and ranchers. It is our understanding that the proponents of H.R. 2375 have an amended version of their bill that will be offered when H.R. 2646 ``The Farm Bill'' is taken up by the House. We have made inquiries to the sponsor of H.R. 2375 in an effort to see if our concerns have been addressed and no one has been able to provide us that assurance. Therefore, we ask that you consider our concerns and not support this effort to amend the conservation title of H.R. 2646. If you need to discuss this issue in more detail or have any questions please contact Ray Hodge in our office. He will be in the Capitol next week and will come by your office to discuss this and other issues with your agriculture staff person. Thank you for considering our concerns and your willingness to support the issues important to the livelihood of Florida farmers and ranchers Sincerely, Carl B. Loop, Jr., President.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Chairman, I was in the Army Medical Corps when the original policy banning abortions in U.S. military facilities was instituted by Ronald Reagan back in the early 1980s. And I could best describe the climate in those hospitals at the time as a collective sigh of relief. While there were many people who were pro life, who objected to having abortions performed in the military facilities, there were quite a few people who were pro choice that I encountered who, nonetheless, took the position that they did not want to in any way, directly or indirectly, be affiliated with the performance of an abortion. Anyone who has ever seen an abortion can understand why I am saying that. Typically, at the conclusion of the procedure, the abortionist attempts to reassemble the body of the aborted baby to make certain that they obtained all of the products of the conception, quote- unquote. It is quite a grisly procedure, and I think a lot of people who perhaps maybe lean on the pro choice side would nonetheless prefer it be done elsewhere. I believe the current policy should be supported. This amendment should be voted down.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Arizona have any remaining speakers? I only have one remaining speaker.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, for 7 years, I was one of the only physicians in my county who treated AIDS patients. I got up in the middle of the night, went into the hospital, examined them, took care of them, for years. I really take offense at some of the language that has been used in response to my amendment. The purpose of my amendment is to protect the integrity of the institution of marriage in the United States. Some people do not understand that. But I would never call them names because they do not seem to understand that.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am offering my amendment because the bill before us is such a stark departure from 9 years of previous law. My amendment simply continues current law. Ever since the District of Columbia passed its domestic partnership act in 1992, the Congress has included a provision to prevent its implementation. Congress and the President have chosen to uphold the institution of marriage, and I am disappointed that others would choose this time to try to reverse it. Please do not believe for a moment that this is about home rule. If you want to believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell. How you vote on this today will have an impact on the institution of marriage in the United States and on how corporations and State and municipal governments treat this issue throughout our Nation for the years to come. Furthermore, under article I of the Constitution and the D.C. home rule law, the Congress maintains full authority to do this. Today, marriage is under assault from culture, the media, and many other entities. Do we want to add the Federal Government to that list? It is critical that we do not go down this path and that we take steps to encourage strong marriages. Study after study have demonstrated that strong marriages between a man and a woman have a stabilizing influence on our community and our societies. The children suffer fewer problems and are less at risk when they are raised in families with a mother and father. We should be passing laws to encourage traditional families. We should not be passing laws that make traditional marriage simply one of several morally-equivalent options. Mr. Chairman, a vote against my amendment is a vote to place heterosexual and homosexual cohabitating relationships on an equal footing with traditional marriage. A vote for my amendment says Members believe that traditional marriage is important and should remain a priority in our society. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to make two important points about the debate surrounding my amendment. I too, along with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, have been blessed by the high level of comity and good relations we have had since the tremendous tragedy that struck our Nation on September 11, and some of my colleagues seem to be implying: Why are you bringing this up at this time? I just want to point out to everyone involved in this debate that for 9 years the policy of the Congress has been to not allow this provision to move ahead. Indeed, it was originally endorsed by a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, and then for 2 years, a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, and then from 1995 on, a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. It is actually the other side of this debate who brought this issue up on September 18. I would agree that this is a somewhat divisive issue, but I would just like to point out to my colleagues that I did not bring it up; they did. They introduced this issue for debate at this time. Now, the other issue I would like to address straight up is there have been people who have gotten up and said that this provision would allow grandmothers and mothers living together, raising children, or persons with disabilities and a live-in care provider, or two sisters raising children to be able to get one of the persons in the house to be covered. The District of Columbia had the option to write a law that would have covered those types of hardship cases; but instead, they chose to write a law that was a blanket provision that simply allows heterosexuals cohabitating to qualify for this benefit and homosexuals cohabitating to qualify for this benefit. I, along with previous administrations and previous Congresses, have endorsed the policy that simply stated that we do not want to do this, and my amendment simply maintains current law, the law for 9 years.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to pay tribute to Chief Master Sergeant John F. Fitzgerald upon his retirement from the United States Air Force. Chief Master Sergeant John Fitzgerald has served our nation with honor and distinction for over 26 years, and his performance his entire career has been characterized by the highest of standards and professionalism. He was born in Evansville, Indiana, on 23 February 1957. He graduated from William Henry Harrison High School in 1975 and entered active duty in January 1976. Upon graduation from basic military training in March 1976, he was assigned under the direct duty assignment program to Charleston Air Force Base and entered into training as an Administrative Specialist. After serving on the base honor guard and coaching little league, he was selected for promotion to Senior Airman Below The Zone and was reassigned to Camp New Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in August 1978. Chief Master Sergeant Fitzgerald's outstanding job performance and professionalism led to his selection for a special duty assignment to join the elite USAF Air Demonstration Squadron, ``Thunderbirds,'' in December 1981. While assigned to the team he was selected as the 1984 Fitzgerald Award Winner, given to the enlisted member of the squadron who contributed most to the team mission. At the culmination of this tour in December 1984, the chief was selected for another special duty assignment to the Headquarters, Tactical Air Command Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, at Langley AFB, Virginia. In August 1988, the chief was selected for a special duty assignment to the Commandant of Cadets, USAF Academy, Colorado. At the end of this tour in December 1991, the chief was selected as a member of the base closure team to end the Air Force's 51-year service at Sondrestrom AB, Greenland. Upon closure of Sondrestrom Air Base on 30 September 1992, the chief was reassigned to Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. After assignment as the 45th Space Wing Command Section Superintendent, he was reassigned to the 45th Mission Support Squadron as the Military Personnel Flight Superintendent. In March 1999, he was selected to become the Command Chief Master Sergeant for Joint Task Force-Southwest Asia and OPERATION SOUTHERN WATCH head-quartered at Eskan Village, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In June 2000, Chief Master Fitzgerald returned to his previous position as the Superintendent, Military Personnel Flight for the 45th Mission Support Squadron at Patrick AFB, Florida, and in January 2001, moved to the 45th Space Wing Staff to a newly created position as Superintendent of the Wing Plans Division. In this capacity he supported various high level, special interest projects of vital importance to NASA, the Florida Spaceport Authority, and the 45th Space Wing, in the Development of the Florida Spaceport program. Chief Master Sergeant Fitzgerald's awards include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with five oak leaf clusters, Air Force Commendation Medal, Air Force Achievement Medal with one oak leaf cluster, USAF Outstanding Airman of the Year Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and the Southwest Asia Service Medal with star. Chief Master Sergeant Fitzgerald is married to the former Phyllis Ann Vaught, and they have one daughter, Amanda. Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the contributions Chief Master Sergeant John Fitzgerald has made to the people of my State, the United States Air Force, and the country. I am certain my colleagues will join me in wishing Chief Master Sergeant Fitzgerald and his wife, Phyllis, all the best. We thank them for over 26 years of service to the United States of America.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the vote on H.R. 2904. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' in favor of the bill.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise encouraging all my colleagues to vote for this rule, which allows same day consideration, and then the subsequent rule on the bill, and certainly passage of the final bill. This is the first bite of the apple. There have been a number of Members who have risen who want to do more. We are going to have plenty of opportunity to do more, but we are clearly in a crisis situation right now. I know the impact of this issue in the State that I represent, Florida, is gigantic. We have hotels in Florida that are virtually empty, rental car fleets that are virtually at a standstill, theme parks and other tourist attractions that are empty. We are going to be seeing layoffs in a lot of other industries, and all of the myriad other issues, airline safety, fair treatment for employees, we are going to have an opportunity to take those issues up. I will tell you an issue I am very concerned about. We have indemnification in this underlying bill. We indemnify the airlines, but not the manufacturers. Some people might say how ridiculous; what trial attorney would sue a manufacturer of an airplane in a hijack situation? Mr. Speaker, it has happened. They have tried to sue manufacturers of airplanes in hijacking situations. So we are going to have to go back and revisit indemnification. We are going to have lots of opportunities to deal with these issues. But this is the right thing to do at this hour. We need to do this for America. It is not for the airline industries, it is for Florida, California, Washington State, it is for the United States of America. Let us pass this rule, and pass the next rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the resolution. Words can never be found to fully express the sorrow we share for the many, many innocent men, women, and children who lost their lives and for their families. The lives of thousands of innocent civilians were taken yesterday in acts of cowardly violence. I urge all Americans to continue to lift up prayers for the families and friends of those whose lives were viciously taken. These evil acts against the American people will strengthen the resolve of the United States in our commitment to freedom and liberty, the principles upon which our Nation was founded. The American people will not flinch, but will respond with all strength and unity against these cowards and their supporters. The resolve of the American people and our military might is united in hunting down everyone involved in this tragic act of war against the American people. Anyone who was connected in any way with these terrorists shall receive the full brunt of our justice. They will rue the day they conceived this act of violence. I call upon my colleagues and all Americans to join President Bush as we stand together in unity against those who senselessly took the lives of countless American men, women, and children. This terrorist action amounts to a declaration of war on innocent civilians and will not be allowed to stand. May God sustain us through our hour of need and give us wisdom to do what is right.

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. 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.