Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the study earlier referred to follows: [From Forbes Magazine, Jan. 27, 1997] Rx: Radical Lawyerectomy (By Peter Huber) How do you trim $20 billion a year from Medicare? That's about what it will take to stave off bankruptcy. The easiest way: amputate lawyers. It can be done. In 1995 Congress immunized community health care centers from malpractice suits. The federal government now covers the claims incurred by these federally subsidized clinics--claims are heard by a judge, not a jury, and there are no punitive awards. The clinics save an estimated $40 million in malpractice insurance. That funds treatment for an additional half-million indigent patients. Why stop there? The country spends about $8 billion a year treating elderly heart-disease patients. Cap awards, abolish punitive damages, implement a few other direct, financial limits on medical malpractice suits, and you reduce hospital expenditures on cardiac patients by 5% to 9%. If limits like these had been written into federal law, nationwide spending on cardiac disease in the late 1980s would have been $600 million a year lower. Extrapolate these results to medical spending generally--a debatable but reasonable enough basis for estimation--and you find that tort reform would save the country as a whole well over $50 billion a year. But how much more negligent medicine would that encourage? How many more cardiac patients would die? How many more would get inferior treatment and suffer a second heart attack as a result? The best estimate: None at all. Nor would any true victims of negligence go uncompensated. The reforms we're talking about here don't eliminate liability, they just place sensible limits on windfalls and double-dipping. They are in fact already part of the law in many states. The numbers I cite come from a very important paper, ``Do Doctors Practice Defensive Medicine?'' written by Daniel Kessler and Mark McClellan, both of Stanford University. The paper appeared in the May 1996 Quarterly Journal of Economics. The authors analyze data on all elderly Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for serious heart disease in 1984, 1987 and 1990. The study correlates spending for medical care with state tort laws. About three patients in five were treated in states that placed no direct limits on rights to sue. But two in five were hospitalized in states that did. Direct liability limits have clear, strong effects on medical spending, the study concludes. But that's just the first half of the story. Previous studies--most notably one conducted by Harvard Medical School in 1990--asked panels of doctors to review patient files and attach subjective judgments about adverse outcomes and deficient treatment. Much of the ``negligence'' identified in this way had no significant impact on the ostensible victim. Studies like this didn't reveal much about the consequences of malpractice litigation because they didn't pin down the consequences of malpractice itself. With elderly cardiac patients there are objective standards for assessing ineffective care: Patients die, or they end up back in a cardiac ward not long after discharge. Analyzing the record on these solid criteria, Kessler and McClellan reach a second, clear conclusion: None of the liability reforms studied ``led to any consequential differences in mortality or the occurrence of serious complications.'' If liability doesn't force doctors to provide better treatment, why does it boost the cost of medicine so sharply? Unlimited liability gets you more medicine, not better. Lawyer-shy doctors administer tests willy-nilly, and hand off patients to specialists with great alacrity. They know that the surest way to avoid liability is to dispatch your problem patient to someone else--a lab technician or another doctor. This can go on indefinitely. It's very expensive. And medically useless. Congress has generally left medical malpractice reform to the states. But when Medicare and Medicaid patients sneeze, it's the federal Treasury that catches cold. No principle of federalism requires federal taxpayers in Montana to pay for Mississippi medicine ordered up by the lawyers there, not the doctors or patients. The best place for Congress to balance the Medicare budget is on the backs of trial lawyers. These lawyers are not old, not poor and not needed.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, due to the launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery earlier today, I was unable to be present for several votes. Had I been present, I would ask that the official Record reflect that I would have voted in favor of the following bills: H.R. 2977-- Paul Kasten Post Office Building Designation Act; H.R. 3200-- Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Enhancement Act of 2005; and H.R. 3283--United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act. Also, I would have voted in favor of the Obey Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2361--Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2006.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, an issue I often hear about from my constituents is concern about the high cost of health insurance and the need for affordable insurance coverage. We all know health insurance premiums continue to increase substantially each year. As such, many small businesses are unable to afford health insurance for their employees. Furthermore, for those who can afford insurance for their employees, rising costs make U.S. products more expensive, harming U.S. competitiveness and costing American jobs. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, but the financial viability of many small businesses is being hurt by the escalating costs of health insurance. This hurts job creation and economic growth. The U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy found that administrative expenses for small health plans make up about 35 percent of total costs. This is not good for small business owners, their employees, or the American economy. Congress must address this problem, which is why I support H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act. By passing H.R. 525 Congress will be leveling the playing field between small businesses, the self-employed, and large corporations. This allows organizations of individuals and businesses to enter into Association Health Plans, AHPs. Under AHPs, small business can pool their resources and purchase group health care similar to the way large corporations do today. They can get better bargaining power in terms of costs and benefits for their employees. It gives workers, who do not have health insurance today, the opportunity to obtain health insurance coverage. Whether it is a small business a trade association, a farm bureau, or a local community organization that is seeking to purchase more affordable health insurance, this legislation will help them. They can join together with other groups and purchase health insurance at much more affordable rates and have better negotiating power with insurance providers. It is generally reported that there are over 40 million people in America without health insurance at any given time. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a more accurate estimate of the number of people who were uninsured for all of an entire year is 21 million to 31 million. Regardless, almost 60 percent of those individuals are employed by a small business. As health care costs increase, fewer employers and working families will be able to afford coverage, and more Americans will be without health insurance. Those who work for small businesses should have the same type of access to health insurance that their counterparts in large corporations already enjoy. I urge Congress to pass H.R. 525. Congress must pass this bipartisan legislation to give much needed relief to American small businesses, farmers, and hard working families.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2863, The Water Resources and Development Act of 2005, WRDA 05. I commend the chairman for including in this bill provisions I requested that are important to Port Canaveral and my constituents in Brevard County, Florida. This bill includes several provisions that are important to the residents of Brevard County as a whole and those living in what has been referred to as the ``Mid-Reach'' or ``wormrock'' area in particular. First, the bill makes it clear that the Corps of Engineers is to accept the ICE report that was completed by and independent panel assessing the true impact of Canaveral inlet on the beach south of that inlet. The ICE report concluded that considerably larger share of the costs of the Brevard County Storm Damage Protection Project should have been borne by the federal government. The provision in WRDA 05 will ensure that Brevard County, Florida is able to recover, as a part of future renourishment activities, that portion of the costs of the original renourishment project that should have been borne by the Federal government. Second, the bill corrects an error that has been promulgated through several Corps documents since the mid-1990s and in WRDA 2000 that incorrectly calculated the length of the ``MidReach'' section of the Brevard County Storm Damage Protection Project as 7.1 miles rather than 7.6 miles. This encompasses the shoreline from the north end of the ``South Reach'' of the Brevard Beach project to the south end of Patrick Air Force Base. The correct length of this section of beach is 7.6 miles and it is important that references to this section of beach be corrected in law. Third, H.R. 2864 directs the Corps to expedite the General Reevaluation Report, GRR, for the Mid-Reach section of the Brevard shoreline. This section of beach will be included as a part of the original project and mitigation and storm damage protection efforts can be undertaken. Finally, H.R. 2864 includes an important provision to ensure that a sediment trap can be constructed as a part of regular operation and maintenance at Port Canaveral. This sediment trap south of the approach channel and east of the south jetty will reduce the probability of a repeat of severe shoaling in the event of future hurricanes. It is appropriate to accomplish this work under the operation and maintenance since this measure is being taken to reduce future maintenance dredging of the Federal navigation channel. There will be cost savings if this is accomplished together with regular scheduled maintenance dredging. The hurricanes that occurred in September 2004 caused severe shoaling in the approach channel to Port Canaveral. This led to the shutting down of the port due to inadequate channel depth. This caused the loss of business and serious problems for cruise ships that had to be diverted to Miami, for oil tankers that could not deliver fuel to the port, and for the power station and cargo ships carrying lumber and other building materials that were needed for repairs and reconstruction after the hurricanes. This also impacted access to the Navy submarine base and Port Canaveral. I thank the chairman for including these important provisions in this legislation and I look forward to passage of this legislation in the Senate.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I wish all the best for NASA and the crew of the Space Shuttle Discovery and the men and women of Kennedy Space Center on attempting to launch tomorrow. Those of us who support the program understand how critically important it is for the United States to have a continuing human presence in space. After the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia in February of 2003, we have not been able to launch our astronauts into space for almost 2\1/ 2\ years. With a successful launch tomorrow, we will once again show the world that our program and the dedicated people behind it are second to none and that our space shuttle fleet is unrivaled when it comes to technology and mission capability. This launch will be an important first step, a first step in the new vision for space exploration articulated by President Bush in January of 2004, a vision that is not only taking us back to low Earth orbit and the space station but that will lead us back to the Moon and one day on to Mars. Again, I know I speak for all Americans when we wish the crew of Discovery God speed and a safe mission.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I always take a keen interest in these debates on veterans' health care issues. I actually work in a veterans' health care facility. I volunteer once a month; I see patients. And I have been doing it for years, and we have seen for years a tremendous explosion in demand for access to our veterans' health care system. And some of it has been generated by this Congress. We relaxed some of the access requirements. Some of it has been generated by the high cost of prescription drugs. A lot of the new patients coming into the system are people who do not have a prescription drug benefit. And, of course, now we have increased demand with the consequence of the war. And I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) on this rule. I think it is a good rule, and I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). He has worked very hard to address this shortfall. And, personally, I think we, as a Congress and as a Committee on Appropriations, need to take a very close look at the bill that we have already passed to address the 2006 needs, and this situation that we are dealing with today, I think, is the right thing for us to do. It is the best thing for our veterans. I know in the State of Florida, where I work and where I live, it has more than doubled, the number of veterans that have come into the system in the last 6 years, and it is truly breathtaking the number of people who are coming into the veterans system on a regular basis. So I commend the author of this supplemental, and I believe it is the right thing for us to do for our veterans. We are in a state of war, and we need to send a signal to young people who want to enlist, to people who are serving and the people who have served that the Congress is going to stand with them and we are going to address these needs properly.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to use the time of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the bioethical issues that we have been debating for the past several years, and particularly over the last couple of months, deal with fundamental questions about the value of human life and the meaning of human dignity. Every poll conducted on the subject of human embryo cloning for research indicates that 70 to 80 percent of the American people oppose human embryo cloning for research purposes. Cloning advocates know that the American public is adamantly opposed to their goals, so they have crafted new speech in an attempt to deliberately mislead Members of Congress, the media, grassroots advocates and the American public. One of the leading patient advocacy groups for human cloning research is the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and they have been sanitizing the language and playing semantic games with a willing media and an unaware American public. Let me give you a few examples. Last year when representatives of the JDRF stopped by my office, they shared with my staff that they endorsed stem cell research involving somatic cell nuclear transfer. When my staff replied that somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, was the cloning of human embryos, the JDRF advocates in my office responded that they had been told by those training them for their Hill visit that SCNT did not create a human embryo because sperm was not used. Indeed, the literature in their own hands stated the following: ``When scientists use SCNT to create stem cells, no sperm is used and the resulting cell has no chance of developing into a human being because it is never placed in a uterus. This is a fundamentally different procedure from reproductive cloning, as was used by scientists in 1996 to create Dolly the sheep.'' This statement is misleading on several counts. JDRF is flat-out wrong when they state that SCNT is a ``fundamentally different procedure from reproductive cloning, as was used by scientists in 1996 to create Dolly the sheep.'' Dr. Ian Wilmut, Dolly's own creator, does not agree with the JDRF statement. Dr. Wilmut stated clearly in a peer- reviewed article, ``the unique feature of Dolly was that she was the first mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic body cell.'' Then he goes on to say, ``The success of somatic cell nuclear transfer was used in creating Dolly.'' Cloning supporter and then-NIH Director Harold Varmus testified in 1998 stating, ``in the Dolly experiment, a lamb was produced using the technology of somatic cell nuclear transfer.'' JDRF implies that sperm is necessary to develop an embryo capable of growing into a human. This notion is completely inaccurate, as hundreds of animals have been created through SCNT using no sperm. Was Dolly not a sheep because sperm was not involved? JDRF characterizes the resulting product of SCNT as merely a cell with no chance of developing into a ``human.'' But President Clinton's own Bioethics Advisory Commission disagrees with this statement. In 1997 his commission stated, ``the commission began its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term.'' Many of the JDRF advocates that have visited Members of Congress are not to be faulted for this misinformation. They are simply sharing with you what those running JDRF's Hill advocacy program have told them. In fact, the patients and families selected to participate in the 2005 JDRF Children's Congress in Washington were required to assign a loyalty oath agreeing to support the JDRF position on these issues. The loyalty oath found on that application, which I have blown up, and I have next to me right here states, ``If there is a discussion of such controversial topics as embryonic stem cell research, I will either embrace the JDRF legislative position on such topics or will not work against the JDRF position.'' This statement clearly calls for applicants to be willing to embrace ethically questionable research or be willing to muzzle their personal and moral convictions. Let us have an honest debate on embryonic stem cell research and let us have an honest debate on human cloning and what it is. It is somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. As we all know, this is a difficult budget year. The American people have expressed, both Democrats and Republicans, strong concern about the budget deficits and are asking Congress to move in a direction of a balanced budget. That is what this bill does, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) needs to be commended. It has a slight decrease in the State Department and Commerce Department funding, a slight increase in Justice Department funding, and as has been pointed out an increase in the science account. I specifically rise to speak in support of the NASA accounts. We, in the congressional district that I have the privilege of representing, launch the space shuttle into space, and that space shuttle is America's space shuttle. It is not a Republican or a Democrat space shuttle, and it is poised to return to flight soon. We need to make sure that it completes the remainder of its assigned mission safely and safely brings the crew back to Earth. And this bill funds the shuttle at the needed level. It also has adequate funding for the space station. We have not completed the construction of the space station, and we have engaged in partnerships with European countries and with the Japanese and the Russians; and once the space shuttle is flying again and with the funding level the chairman and the ranking member have put in this bill, we should be well on track to complete construction of the space station. I would like to also rise and speak in support of the initiative in this bill to increase aeronautics funding. And my colleagues, the United States has dominated the world in aeronautics. We are the home to the Wright brothers. And today we are being eclipsed. Today, Airbus has a greater global market share than Boeing, our sole remaining commercial airline manufacturing company. And this is critical seed corn if we, as a Nation, are going to be able to continue to have our edge in commercial aviation and in the whole field of civil aviation and aeronautics. I would like to specifically address the issue of the President's space initiative. And one of the things that I have been increasingly concerned about in my position as a legislator is the fact that people in education tell me we just do not have enough American kids going into science, mathematics, and engineering. And those same educators tell me over and over again the thing that motivates kids more than anything else to go into those fields is the space program. And for years, NASA languished because many people criticized it for not having a clear vision. President John Kennedy gave it a clear vision in the 1960s; and, finally, today, we have that vision again. We are talking about going back to the Moon and on to Mars. President Bush gave us that vision, and now is not the time to cut back. We have a critical situation where, in many of our colleges and universities, the majority of people pursuing graduate degrees in science and engineering fields are foreigners. They are not Americans. We are not graduating enough American citizens in these fields, and there is no better way to motivate our young people, young kids in grammar school, in secondary school. Let me just say one other thing to close out. A lot of this space exploration is about the spirit of being an American citizen. We are a Nation of explorers, and if we are going to turn our back, or if we are going to delay, and I am very sympathetic to what the ranking member is trying to do with more funding for police, and I would certainly hope we may be able to do that in conference. But if we are going to remain a Nation that is always on the cutting edge of science and exploration, we desperately need NASA and what this bill is about. I would strongly encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose any initiative to reduce the NASA accounts, to reduce the science accounts, to support the underlying bill. It is the right thing for our kids. It is the right thing for our competitiveness in the future. And it is the right thing to make sure that our space program stays on track.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. Americans take great pride in the accomplishments of the manned space flight program and NASA going all the way back to its earliest days, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and beyond. And there always were people who came to the floor of this body proposing cuts to those programs, to NASA, and always shifting dollars to very, very worthwhile, or seemingly very, very worthwhile, entities. I would just like to point out to my colleagues, do not be misled into believing that local law enforcement is going to be in a crisis if they do not get these additional funds. Better than 99 percent of funding to local law enforcement comes from State and local funding sources, and this amount of money is literally a drop in the bucket. I would just like to also add that the Bush tax cuts that we passed out of this body and became law are causing a tremendous amount of economic growth and job creation, and there has been actually a surge of revenue into the State and local treasuries. Indeed, I am even told that chronically underfinanced New York City has a $2 billion surplus. My State that I come from in Florida, we are experiencing a surplus because of the robust growth caused by this tax cut package. Those local and State agencies can put more funding into COPS programs and fighting meth labs. They actually have much more resources to take care of the job.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and his staff, as well as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for their diligent work on bringing this very, very good bill to the floor of the House. What we are going to be voting for here will help create a banking system so that if a patient comes in to see me with a particular illness that is amenable to treatment with stem cells, I can enter their genetic information in a computer, find a match of cord blood that would be kept in a freezer, and actually treat the patient. It is really exciting, I have to say. I never thought I would live to see the day where we would be curing sickle cell anemia. And for those of my colleagues who do not know about sickle cell anemia, sickle cell is a terrible disease. You get these young people, kids, coming in your office with these horrible, painful crises where their bones are aching and you end up having to give them narcotics and transfuse them. It stunts their growth, horrible condition. We now have 10, 10 kids that have been cured of sickle cell anemia. Just yesterday I was flying up here, and as I often do, I grabbed some medical journals to read on the plane. I was reading the May 19 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine and, lo and behold, another research article, this one on transplantation of umbilical cord blood in babies with Infantile Krabbe's disease, a rare disease, a terrible disease, the babies die; and this cord blood study shows if you catch it early, you can actually cure these kids. I know there have been a number of Members coming to the floor talking about the embryonic bill that we are going to take up later; the embryonic stem cells have never been shown to be successfully useful in a human model. They do not even have one case. We have thousands of people who have been treated with adult stem cells and these cord blood treatments. I just want to correct the gentleman from Alabama. He has implied some of us are against stem cell research. That is not the case at all here. We are just for ethical stem cell research.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to set the record straight. There have been some people who have implied there is limited capacity for these cord blood stems to be used successfully. They have been shown to be pluripotent. They can become all different cell types, and they have shown a tremendous amount of plasticity. This poster is of a young lady who was paralyzed for years and had an adult stem cell transplant. She is able to stand up. But I just want to clarify on the cord blood, it has been used to treat leukemia, adrenoleukodystrophy, Burkitt's lymphoma, chronic granulomatous diseases, congenital neutropenia, DiGeorge's syndrome, Fanconi's anemia, and these are just some of them, Gaucher's disease. Hodgkin's disease, cord blood has been used successfully to treat Hodgkin's disease; idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, which is a really bad disease. I used to see some of those. Krabbe's disease I mentioned earlier, that was just in the New England Journal this month. Lymphoma; lymphoproliferative syndrome; myelofibrosis; neuroblastoma, which is a form of brain tumor which has been successfully treated with cord blood. Osteopetrosis has been successfully treated. Reticular dysgenesis, severe aplastic anemia. The list goes on and on. There are 65 different medical conditions that have been successfully treated with cord blood. People have mentioned diabetes. Embryonic stem cells have not been successfully used to treat diabetes either, but actually in animal models adult stem cells have been used successfully to treat diabetes. I think most of the hope and success is in this cord blood. That is why this bill is very, very important.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as most of my colleagues know, I practice general internal medicine and I still do it. I have treated a lot of patients with diabetes, Parkinson's; indeed, my father died of complications of diabetes. My uncle, his brother, died of complications of Parkinson's disease. Let us just talk a little bit about how we got here, okay? This body voted years ago, no Federal funding for research that involves the destruction of a human embryo. And President Clinton, towards the tail end of his administration, did an end run around the congressional prohibition, and they were having outside labs destroy the embryos, get the embryonic stem cells and send them over to NIH. And I sent the President a letter telling him, You are violating the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law. When President Bush became President, a lot of us alerted him to this problem, and he came out with his policy. And I thought it was really like a Solomon-like compromise. He said, We will not allow any more Federal funds to be used that involve the killing of human embryos, but we will allow research to proceed on the existing cell lines. And I sit on the committee that funds this. We have funded this research to the tune of $60 million over the last 3 years, embryonic stem cell research, what you are asking for more of. And the only place that I can find the research results printed is, I have to go to the rat-and-mouse journals. And the results are bad. These things tend to form tumors. The plasticity that some of you extol in these embryonic stem cells make them genetically unstable. They tend to form tumors. We call them teratomas in the medical profession. They grow hair and they grow teeth. They are genetically unstable. Meanwhile, on the adult stem cell line it is breakthrough after breakthrough after breakthrough. Indeed, the gentlewoman from Colorado said in her opening statement, there is no, no scientific evidence that will show that cord blood or adult stem cells will cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or Type 1 diabetes. Parkinson's disease was successfully treated 6 years ago in Dennis Turner using an adult stem cell. He had an 80 percent reduction in his symptoms. This was described at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons annual meeting in April of 2002. In 2003, Science-published Harvard researchers announced they had achieved a permanent reversal of diabetes in mice. This is now under human clinical trials today, while we speak. By the way, they tried to repeat that study using embryonic, mouse embryonic stem cells and it failed. And this lady was in a wheelchair and she can now stand up with adult stem cells. We do not need this bill. It is ethically wrong. We should be voting ``no.''

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. We have heard a lot of discussion of the three known forms of stem cell therapies that are hypothesized to treat all these diseases. One of the nice things about adult stem cell treatments and why I think they have been embraced, and part of the reason they have been so successful is, if you use a cell from your own body, there are no tissue rejection concerns. If you use a cord blood or placental blood stem cell, there are tissue rejection concerns; but it is felt by the advocates of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith's) bill, such as myself, that by obtaining the bank, we would be able to enter all of your genetic information and come up with a match. And one of the questions I have for my colleagues who have been an advocate for the Castle/DeGette bill is, how, if these embryonic cells were ever proven to be useful, and that has yet to be demonstrated in the literature, how would you override the tissue rejection concerns? Mr. Speaker, it takes us to a very important part of this debate that we really have not dwelled on very much. They say there are 400,000 embryos in the freezers, but the truth is the vast majority of those embryos are wanted, and their own studies suggest only 275 cell lines will be available if this bill becomes law. Mr. Speaker, the place we are going to have to go to make embryonic stem cell work, if it ever can be demonstrated to work, is creating human embryos for this purpose. And that really brings me to my point. If you are going to go down the road of creating human embryos, you really only have two options. You are going to need tens of thousands of women to donate their eggs, or you are going to have to clone. And that is why people like myself have been saying, wait to see what is next, because that is going to be the next debate. If this becomes law, we are going to be asked to embrace Federal funding for creating human life for this research. No longer using the so-called excess embryos, but either exploiting women for their eggs or worse, we are going down the path of cloning. And I assure you, if you find those options objectionable, they will be cloaked with the same kind of arguments that have been used to support this bill. People will say it is for the purpose of helping the sick and suffering. And what I have been saying over and over again, if you actually read the medical journals, the promise and the potential appear to be in the ethically acceptable alternatives of adult stem research and cord blood research. Reject this bill. Vote ``no'' on Castle/DeGette.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join with my colleague today, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), to introduce the Clinical Research Act of 2005. This bill might be better referred to as the ``Curing Humans Rather Than Rats Act of 2005.'' This bill will address many of the problems confronting academic health centers as they attempt to leverage enormous biomedical research gains made in the past century and, in particular, in the last decade, by the vast investment of the U.S. taxpayers in the National Institutes of Health. In 1994, when I was first elected, the NIH budget was just $10 billion, but today, they get $29 billion. This is a significant expansion of biomedical research funding. It is resulting in significant breakthroughs in a host of areas to include human genomics, biomedical engineering, molecular biology, and immunology. These have provided an unprecedented supply of information for improving human health. Research often does not produce results overnight, but as stewards of the taxpayer dollars, we have every right to expect that the fruits of that research will result in better treatments for patients. Reaping the benefits of this bench research requires a Federal commitment to clinical research, including a commitment to ensuring that the infrastructure is capable of translating, in a systematic and rational way, the fruits of basic science research into improved patient care. Unfortunately, while we have seen this dramatic increase in NIH funding, the Federal commitment to clinical research has not kept pace with rising costs. Just what is clinical research? A great example has been the great breakthroughs in the treatment of AIDS in recent years. These new compounds are often developed in a laboratory, tested on laboratory animals, but then, at some point, academic research centers have to start giving these products, these compounds to humans. They interface with the lab and the patients. They bring these new interventions from the bench to the doctors and clinics all over this country. What has happened to the clinical researchers and why? From 1970 to today, the percentage of clinical researchers and NIH study committees has dropped dramatically. These NIH study groups are the committees that score research proposals and make recommendations on which proposals will be funded. The costs of clinical research have increased dramatically as, obviously, we are working with humans. To many researchers, working with rats and tissues is just much easier. With rats, they show up to work every day, they follow the protocols and, if they die, they will not sue you. You just buy some more rats. Also, academic health centers, under increased pressure to costs and the need to generate income, are putting increased pressure on the clinical researchers to spend more of their time seeing billable patients and less of their time on their clinical research projects. All of this hinders clinical research and makes it less likely that the cures will move from the lab to the bedside. This is a growing frustration, not just for the clinical researchers that work in this field, but for the patient advocacy groups. I hear repeatedly from people who advocate for those suffering from kidney disease, heart disease, Parkinson's Disease that we are not moving the scientific information quickly enough into patient care. We have been too slow in getting improved patient therapies and interventions from the enormous investment we have made in basic research. It is important that this Congress step in now and address this challenge. I believe we can and should do a better job in moving bench research to the bedside. That is what this bill is aimed at doing. In addition to concerns about how NIH dollars are allocated, we must recognize the significant financial burdens that academic health centers are facing today associated with rising costs, inadequate funding, mounting regulatory burdens, fragmented infrastructure, incompatible databases, and a shortage of both qualified investigators and willing study participants. Let me add that some of my colleagues have suggested that NIH should focus on basic research and that private industry will focus on clinical applications. Those suggesting this lack a full understanding of the issues at hand. Industry is much less likely to dedicate tens of millions of dollars to research clinical applications to address the needs of millions of Americans who suffer from one of the hosts of small and less profitable to treat diseases. Industry does not, nor will it, spend tens of millions of dollars on nonpatentable therapies and interventions. If you cannot patent it and you will not make a profit, industry just will not fund it. Of note, however, is that the NIH will and does devote significant taxpayer funding in partnerships with industry to develop patentable compounds and interventions. Absent the resources provided in this bill, patients will continue to suffer, I believe needlessly, from diseases for which we could and should develop definitive treatments. The bill that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) and I are introducing today, and that Senator Santorum is preparing to introduce in the Senate, will provide our Nation's academic health centers with the crucial resources they need and the opportunity to meet the public's expectation. If we are going to reap the full benefit of the enormous investment of taxpayer dollars in biomedical research, it is important that we move this legislation forward. I would say to my colleagues, if you think that we have cured enough rats and believe it is time that we look to cure a few more humans, join me and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) in the bipartisan Clinical Research Act of 2005.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 264) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk will report the resolution.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 231.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle to introduce the ``Clinical Research Act of 2005.'' This bill will address many of the problems confronting our Academic Health Centers as they attempt to leverage the enormous biomedical research gains made in the past century, and in the past several years in particular as the budget for the National Institutes of Health has doubled. Breakthroughs in basic biomedical sciences over the past 5 decades, including human genomics, biomedical engineering, molecular biology, and immunology, have provided an unprecedented supply of information for improving human health. As a member of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee I am proud to say that the remarkable strides that have been made in basic science would not have occurred without the support of Congress and the general public. While we realize that research may not produce results overnight, we, as stewards of the taxpayers' dollar have every right to expect that the fruits of that research will result in better treatments for patients. This requires a federal commitment to clinical research, including a commitment to ensuring that the infrastructure is capable of translating, in a systemic and rational way, the fruits of basic research into improved patient care. I, along with many of my colleagues in the Congress and the public in general, have become increasingly concerned that we have been too slow in getting improved patient therapies and interventions from the enormous investment we have made in basic research. The Congress and both the Clinton and Bush Administrations made significant commitments to doubling the NIH budget. Significant strides and advancements have been made in basic research. Unfortunately, I hear on an ongoing basis from patient advocacy groups concerned that this significant taxpayer investment has not had much direct benefit to those suffering from disease. In addition to hearing from patient advocacy groups, I hear from my colleagues about the apparent disconnect between the promise of basic science and the delivery of better health care for the citizens of this country. I believe that we can and should do a better job of moving the bench research to the bedside. That is what this bill is aimed at doing. Without strong Academic Health Centers capable of conducting clinical research, the promise of improving the health of the American people will continue to elude us. Unfortunately, the clinical research environment in the Academic Health Centers is encumbered by rising costs, inadequate funding, mounting regulatory burdens, fragmented infrastructure, incompatible databases, and a shortage of both qualified investigators and willing study participants. Without changes to help Academic Health Centers meet these challenges, these breakthroughs in basic science will remain in the laboratories. Rat after rat will continue to be cured, but due to the burdensome costs and the lack of clinical researchers cures for humans will not materialize. Let's face it, bench research is less burdensome and less costly than applying clinical therapies to human beings suffering various diseases. Furthermore, because of the rising cost of healthcare delivery and the fiscal pressures weighing on academic health centers, many of these physician researchers face institutional pressures to spend more and more of their time seeing billable patients rather than conducting innovative clinical research. The clinical researcher is a diminishing breed, yet they play a vital role in bringing cures out of the laboratory to the suffering patient. It is also important to recognize that many of the potential cures for patients utilize therapies and interventions for which there is not a patentable product. In other words, there is no profit motive for large corporate backer to invest resources in developing these therapies. Without federal support for this clinical research, most of these trials and likely cures will remain out of the reach of patients. The bill that Representative Doyle and I are introducing today, through its clinical research support grants, infrastructure grants, and ``partnerships in clinical research'' grants, will provide our Nation's Academic Health Centers with the crucial resources they need and the opportunity to meet the public's expectations. This bill is specifically aimed at improving the translation of this new medical science knowledge to directly benefit those suffering from a wide array of diseases that impact all too many lives. If we are going to reap the benefit of the enormous investment of taxpayer dollars in biomedical research it is important that we move this legislation forward. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It's a tremendous step in the right direction for this nation to achieve energy independence. Through a combined strategy of strong R&D, efficiency and incentives we can help ensure future generations of Americans a vibrant and growing economy while not having to worry about the whims of foreign influence on our energy. The bill also authorizes $200 million for the ``Clean Cities'' program, which will provide grants to state and local governments to acquire alternative fueled vehicles. I have been working in Central Florida over the past several years to promote research into hydrogen- powered vehicles. I applaud the White House for taking such a proactive stance on new technologies. This bill promotes a cleaner environment by encouraging new innovations and the use of alternative power sources by launching a state-of-the-art program to enable hydrogen fuel cell cars to compete in the marketplace by 2020. Under this bill, American consumers will have better product labeling for a number of commercial and household products so that they will be able to make more informed decisions when purchasing energy saving products. H.R. 6 further decreases America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil by expanding domestic production and authorizing expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve's capacity to 1 billion barrels of oil. America's energy consumption is at an all-time high and rising, despite ongoing efficiency gains, with consumption projected to grow as our economy expands. If our nation is to meet these needs in the coming decades, it will be in part due to continued advances in energy efficiency and conservation--helping to reduce our demand on foreign supply and stimulating economic growth. One goal is to save consumers and businesses' money spent on energy, so they can invest, spend and grow the economy and improve our standard of living. Expanding our energy production capacity is a key to long-term economic growth and energy independence. H.R. 6 encourages the great American tradition of technological innovation and creative problem solving. It is America working at its best and this legislation is long overdue. I stand in strong support of this legislation and look forward to seeing it enacted into law.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to express strong support for the resolution before the House today. I thank Representative Murphy for introducing this bill. Immunizations have been the most successful medical intervention in terms of saving lives and sparing mankind from life-long disabilities resulting from infectious disease. Fifty years ago we began using the Salk polio vaccine discovered by Dr. Jonas Salk. In 1957, three years after the first widespread use of Dr. Salk's vaccine in the United States, polio in the U.S. fell by 85- 90 percent. Polio, which annually ravaged communities across this nation and the world, causing death and permanent disability, has been virtually absent in the United States for quite some time now. Polio and its harmful effects have been virtually eliminated in nation after nation. Presently, there are less than a handful of nations that are plagued by polio in largely isolated communities. We are on the brink of elimination of this scourge.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for years, honest but unfortunate consumers have had the ability to plead their case to come under bankruptcy protection and have their reasonable and valid debts discharged. The way the system is supposed to work, the bankruptcy court evaluates various factors including income, assets and debt to determine what debts can be paid and how consumers can get back on their feet. The bill before us preserves that right for those individuals who simply get in over their heads and have no other way out Unfortunately, some dishonest individuals have taken advantage of our bankruptcy laws by hiding assets, racking up debt in anticipation of filing for bankruptcy, using bankruptcy as a financial planning tool, and walking away from that which they owe. This hurts our economy because it forces retailers and businesses to simply raise the prices of goods and services for honest Americans. All Americans end up paying the costs for those who have gamed the bankruptcy laws. I support S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. I am a cosponsor of the House version of this bill. This common sense legislation preserves the right to file bankruptcy for those who truly cannot repay their debts while ensuring that those who do have the ability to repay a portion of their debts do so. S. 256 provides the same kinds of bankruptcy reforms the House has approved twice before. It restores the principles of fairness and personal responsibility to our bankruptcy system and protects the rights of consumers. S. 256 also requires creditors to help prevent credit card abuse through new disclosures and educational provisions. This is a good bill for average American consumers, for American businesses, and our economy as a whole.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005. I have supported this measure in the past and have introduced similar legislation to make the death tax repeal permanent. I believe it is important that we accomplish the goal of passing this in the House and the Senate and seeing this bill enacted into law. The Death Tax needs to die. Along with the marriage penalty, the death tax is perhaps the most disgraceful tax levied by the Federal Government and it should be repealed immediately. The death tax is double taxation. Small business owners and family farmers pay taxes throughout their lifetime, then at the time of death they are assessed another tax on the value of the property on which they have already paid taxes. This is unfair, unjust and an inefficient burden on our economy. I have spoken in the past about a constituent of mine, Danny Sexton of Kissimmee, FL and owner of Kissimmee Florist. He, like millions of other Americans, has experienced the sad realities of the Death Tax. He joined me several years ago in Washington to highlight the adverse impact the Death Tax had on his family business. Mr. Sexton, who comes from a family of florists, inherited his uncle's flower shop and was faced with paying almost $160,000 in estate taxes. This forced him to have to liquidate all of the assets, layoff workers and take out a loan just to pay the death tax. He also had to establish a line of credit just to keep the operation running. Danny Sexton is the reason we need to appeal the death tax. The death tax isn't a tax on just the rich, it is a tax that hurts family owned businesses--family owned businesses that are the backbone of this great Nation. It also caused several average workers to lose their jobs. Family owned businesses provide and create millions of jobs for American workers. The people who worked in Mr. Sexton's florist were not rich, but they lost their jobs because of the Death Tax. In a recent survey conducted by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 89 percent of small business owners favored permanent repeal of the death tax. Why? Because these small business owners know this tax may mean the death of their business for future generations. According to the Center for the Study of Taxation, more than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation and 87 percent do not make it to the third generation. Family owned and operated businesses deserve the right to be inherited by the next generation without the blow of the death tax. In current law, the death tax is phased-out, completely repealed in 2010. But that is not good enough because in 2011, the tax reemerges in full force. That means taxpayers must plan for three different scenarios when passing along their family business--pre- 2010 when the exemption levels are gradually increasing and the top rate gradually decreasing; 2010 when the tax is completely repealed; or 2011 when the tax reemerges. This is complicated, confusing and hard to plan for-- unless a small business owner knows for certain when his or her death will occur. When we make this tax repeal permanent, taxpayers will have the ability to make long-term financial plans with certainty and will have the opportunity to pass on their hard earned family businesses and farms to future generations. It will also ensure that those who work for these small businesses are able to keep their jobs. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I commend him for the work he has put in over the last 4 days to try to bring this bill to the floor. This is not the original version of the bill that I introduced about 2 weeks ago, but I think it will have the intended result. For many people listening and watching, you may get the impression this is a dispute between the Democrats and the Republicans; but there were 30, approximately 30 Democrats on the bill and I know that many Democrats do support this. I practiced medicine for 15 years, internal medicine, before I came to the House of Representatives. I took care of a lot of these kinds of cases. And there were basically three features of this case that compelled me to feel that a Federal review of the case was warranted. And by the way, I think it has been pointed out by some of the people that preceded me, Scott Peterson's case is going to get a Federal review, John Couey, the man who confessed to killing that young girl in Florida not far from where Terri Schiavo lives, he will get a Federal review; but there were several features of it. Number one, by my medical definition she was not in a vegetative state based on my review of the videos, my talking to the family, and my discussing the case with one of the neurologists who examined her. And, yes, I asked to get into the room and was unable to do so. The other thing was this very lengthy pause, and that has also been pointed out by some of the people who have spoken, of 7 years between her original injury and when it was stated that she had prior voiced sentiments of not wanting heroic life-sustaining measures. My clinical experience has always been that immediately family brings that up. They do not wait 7 years. There were other features of this case that I thought were highly unusual that warranted a Federal review. I think this is a good bill. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in support of it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I practiced medicine for 15 years prior to my election to this body; and, unfortunately, I personally had to get involved on many instances in cases like this. And I would just share with Members there were instances where I did support families' wishes to withdraw food and water. For me, the dividing line always was, are you prolonging the death? Are you prolonging suffering or are you prolonging life? The case that has precipitated this piece of legislation does not involve a dying person. It does not involve a person with a terminal disease. It is not a person in a vegetative state. She has an active EEG. She has eyes that respond, a face that tries to smile. She tries to vocalize. In my opinion, this legislation that the chairman has brought forward is essentially the same thing as the bill I introduced last week. My legal remedy was a habeas corpus method of dealing with it. The chairman has, I believe, actually come up with a better solution; the removal act I think is a better way to deal with this. I would just simply point out to all of my colleagues, we do not actually in this bill make a determination that her feeding tube will stay in. It simply allows a Federal review to make sure her rights under the Constitution are properly protected, the right to due process, the right to equal protection, and as well her right to life. The annals of medical history are filled with numerous cases of people in these semi-comatose states who come out of it. And as we all know, the mother and father and the brothers and sisters desperately do not want her to be starved to death and that the original guardian in this case found the testimony of the husband that she, Terri, had prior voiced no life sustaining measures should she ever be in this condition. His testimony was not credible. Let me tell Members, I have been there; and when people have voiced a sentiment that they do not want heroic measures should they ever be in this type of condition, it is brought up immediately. It is not brought up 7 years later. The person comes in, they have had a stroke, a car wreck and you hear immediately from the family members, Uncle Joe or grandma said if they were ever like this, she would not want life- sustaining measures. You do not have a 7-year pause in this case. Just to close, we do not actually say this woman will continue to get her feedings. All we simply say is there will be a review; and I think there desperately needs to be a review. This is unprecedented for a judge to order the withdrawal of food and water from somebody. It has never been done before to my knowledge. And then to order that the family members cannot put a glass of water up to her mouth, this constitutes, in my opinion, cruel and unusual punishment. I commend the chairman for what he has done.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the legislation I have just introduced, the Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act, enrolled as H.R. 1151. This legislation's immediate intent is to deal with the issues surrounding Terry Schiavo. I practiced medicine for 15 years prior to my election to the House of Representatives. I still see patients once a month, and I was involved in numerous cases involving situations like this. Terry has been described in the press as being in a vegetative state, and I believe that she is not, absolutely that she is not. The correct term to describe Terry Schiavo is brain-damaged, severely brain- damaged, but you can see her on videos. Now the judge will not let people such as myself go in there to see her even though the family would like me to be able to examine her. But according to the family, she is the same way. She is responsive. She will look at you, attempt to vocalize. She will attempt to kiss her parents. The judge in the case, Judge Greer, has tried to dismiss these obvious behaviors indicating that she does have a higher level of functioning and she should not be described as vegetative, as primitive reflexes. And I would assert as a physician that it is extremely dangerous to walk down that kind of a path, where you have somebody with mental retardation, disability or any type of brain injury and you start ascribing obvious human-like behavior on the part of these individuals as being primitive reflexes and that these people are expendable. Terry is under a court order to withdraw food and water. This is unprecedented in our legal history. Previous cases that received national notoriety, like the Karen Ann Quinlan case, involved family and physicians mutually recognizing that this person did not have a chance of surviving and wanting to withdraw, in the case of the Quinlan case, a respirator, and the court going along with it because the clinicians involved did not want to be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder. In this case, there is a dispute. The husband wants to terminate food and water, and the family, in the form of the mother and father, vehemently being opposed to it. The judge has stepped in, and I think he has made some clinical judgments that are not really founded in good clinical science. I am certain if doctors put an EEG on her, we would see extensive brain waves indicating activity in the visual cortex and in the speech centers, and she should not be defined as vegetative, My bill, H.R. 1151, Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act, would simply extend to Terry Schiavo the same benefits currently afforded death row inmates, and she is under a death warrant, death by essential dehydration. It would allow her to receive legal representation, the same kind of legal representation that death row inmates receive. Currently, she does not have her own attorney. Her parents have an attorney. Her attorney has an attorney. Under this bill, she would get legal representation. It would allow for a more detailed review of the case. As a clinician, she has gotten, to my knowledge, according to the family I have spoken to, no therapy since 1993. I know from having worked with stroke victims and therapists, you can sometimes give these people thicken liquids, and they are able to swallow. Evidently, Terry, prior to the termination of her therapy, was working with a speech therapist and was able to say a few words. She may be able to survive without a tube. Another important point I want to make here, there was a $1.56 million medical malpractice settlement that was provided for her care. Much of that has been spent on legal fees trying to end her life. This is not a case where the State is spending a lot of money. The resources are there to take care of her needs in the future. Her parents do not want to see her dying of starvation and thirst. I think it is fully appropriate for us to step in, for her to have a right, the same right a death row inmate gets, and to allow, hopefully, review in front of a Federal judge reviewing all of the facts in this case. When doctors really look at the facts, I think it is very, very hard to justify ending her life in such a way. So I would encourage all of my colleagues to sign on and support the bill and, most importantly, for our leadership on both sides of the aisle to allow expedited review. If not, her tube is scheduled to come out March 18.