[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 7 (Friday, January 12, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H499-H504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE DEMOCRATIC AGENDA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs.
Blackburn) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I appreciate
the leadership, our House Republican leadership designating the time
for us to be able to use today. We want to continue our discussion with
the American people and put the emphasis on what has happened since we
gaveled in for the 110th session of Congress.
It is going to be such an interesting Congress, we know that. There
is a lot of work to do, and our constituents are depending on us to get
the job done for them. We all look forward to that. We are excited
about representing our constituents.
What we are not real excited about are some of the things that the
majority has pushed forward and the way in which they have gone about
it this week. What was to be openness, what was to be transparency, has
devolved into a Rules Committee not being put into place, our regular
order not being recognized, bills not going to committees,
opportunities to amend those bills not being given, and it has made for
quite an interesting 54 hours and 48 minutes as of this morning.
I am joined by a couple of my colleagues, and they are going to give
some of their thoughts. I would like to recognize first, Mr. Davis from
Tennessee, who is new to the House this year. He is a Member of the
freshman class. He served in the Tennessee General Assembly, and we are
so delighted that he did.
When I was in the State Senate in Tennessee, he served in the State
House, and he has given to the process of open government, and to
government reform and was a leader on those issues in this State.
At this time I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David
Davis), for some comments.
Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Thank you, Congresswoman Blackburn,
thank you for your leadership, your friendship through down through the
years. You have been a great friend of mine in the State General
Assembly, and it is an honor to be on this distinguished floor with you
tonight.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Good to share the floor with you.
Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. It is a great opportunity. As we get
ready to conclude this second week of the 110th Congress, I look back
over this time, and I think of the elections. We look
[[Page H500]]
back at the elections that took place, and I think the American people
voted for change. I think there has been a change, as the majority
changed, but I am not sure it is the change that the American people
voted for.
I tell you what I heard back in my district about change: Government
had gotten too big. I think the American people voted for change to
make sure that we brought some responsibility to the government.
If I look back over what has taken place in the last 2 weeks, we are
not going towards the change the American people voted for; we are
going just the opposite. I don't think the American people are going to
be happy with that type of change.
One of my roles in life as a Tennessee State representative was to
work with the Democratic majority in Nashville to open up government.
When I first went in to the Tennessee legislature, I went in and I
found out that you could go on to the House floor, in the committee
system, the subcommittees, and take votes, and those votes were not
even counted. That is just wrong.
I thought it is going to be nice and refreshing to go to Washington,
where we have an open process, and we have a party that has just taken
over the majority, and they tell us, it is going to be even better than
it was.
When I look back at Tennessee, you could cast a vote in committee or
subcommittee, and you could tell the speaker, Mr. Speaker, don't worry
about me, I am with you. Then you could go back to your home district
and say, don't worry about me, I am with you, and be talking about two
different things.
I was hoping it was going to be different as I came to Washington. It
was, until last week.
Last week, one of our first votes on the House floor was to close the
House of Representatives and the Rules Committee to the American
people. That is not openness. That is not transparency. That is just
wrong. That is exactly where we have come to in this House of
Representatives. We have come to a situation where Rules Committee
Members can go in and decide on the American people's business and not
have their votes counted. That is not right.
Then we look at some of the other things we have voted for on the
House floor. Again, as we recall, the American people voted for change,
and in my district, the first district, the beautiful mountains of east
Tennessee, I think they were telling me, and I think as we saw change
coming across the United States, they wanted the government to be more
responsible.
What I found the first week we are here, we actually removed the rule
that took a three-fifths majority to increase taxes, and we lowered
that threshold in the majority rule down to a simple majority.
Now, Mrs. Blackburn, I don't know about you, but I certainly believe
it will be much easier to raise taxes. I don't believe that rule would
have been changed had they not have foreseen a tax increase coming down
the road.
That is not what the people of Tennessee want, I can tell you that. I
think what it leads to is bigger government, bigger bureaucracies,
somebody has to pay. Money comes from the people, and it comes from
small business owners. It comes from people that are willing to work
hard.
Another vote we have taken in the first two weeks, well, I don't know
exactly where the first 100 hours starts or when it stops, but in the
first 2 weeks, we passed a bill on this floor, without my vote, that
threatens the life of the unborn.
I think we have done it under some deception, because if you look at
embryonic stem cells, they have been researched for a number of years;
it was not illegal. The bill that was passed on this House floor did
not change that law. It was about taxpayer funding of destruction of
human life. I don't think that is what the people of the First
Congressional District wanted. I don't think that is the change the
American people wanted.
Another bill we dealt with was a bill that would put our national
security under control of the United Nations. I certainly don't believe
that is what the people of the First Congressional District or the
people of America wanted. We are a sovereign Nation, we should be able
to protect ourselves without the approval of the U.N.
In my opinion, bigger government is not always the answer. At times,
oftentimes, it is the problem.
What I find as I talk to real people back in my district and what I
believe deeply in my soul is that the answers to American problems come
from our families; they come from our State legislatures, our local
governments, our business owners. Big government in Washington is not
always the answer. Oftentimes it is the problem.
With that, I yield back and welcome your comments.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. I welcome his
comments. He is on target, Mr. Speaker, and just as he always has been
in the General Assembly of Tennessee. Government is not the solution to
many problems. Government many times itself causes the problem.
We all know that when you have a situation out there that if you put
government into that mix to solve that problem, you don't get a private
sector or a not-for-profit solution to that problem. You get a
taxpayer-funded bureaucracy that is guaranteed to grow, guaranteed to
grow, because they never go back to dollar one to build that budget.
They go back to what is called baseline budgeting. Baseline budgeting
says you take what you had last year and you build on it.
I tell you what, one of my constituents the other day, they were
talking about this, compounding, and compounding interest in order to
build a retirement nest egg, and what a wonderful concept compounding
interest is.
It came to mind, as he said, you know, that is what the liberals have
been doing with that Federal budget. It is compounded spending, because
every year you take what you had and you add to it, and you grow it a
little more and spending always grows.
{time} 1545
As the gentleman from Tennessee said, in their PAYGO rules, what they
have done is make it easier to raise taxes without you knowing about
it, without the American people knowing about it.
So the 110th Congress is going to be the hang-on-to-your-wallet
Congress, because it is coming at you. They are after your wallet, and
they are going to take more and more of your wallet, your money that
you have earned, and they are going to give it to the government, to
the bureaucrats, to solve your problems in a way you don't want. So
hang on, it is coming.
But in order to get some help, we have got some great Members here on
our side of the aisle who are going to be fighting for the American
people every single step of the way. One of those great Members is the
former lieutenant governor from the State of Oklahoma, and she joins us
this year as a member of the freshman class. She has been such a
stalwart for conservative ideas and for helping Oklahoma set its course
toward a State that is dynamic, even developed some pretty good
football players along the way, and we are absolutely delighted to have
the gentlewoman from Oklahoma join us and share her thoughts on her
first couple of weeks here in Washington.
I yield to the gentlewoman.
Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very kind introduction. It
is a pleasure to be here with you today.
As a newly elected Member of Congress, I am very humbled by the
opportunity to be able to serve in this esteemed body and to represent
the people of Oklahoma. I have had the great opportunity to serve as a
member of the Oklahoma legislature and, as the gentlewoman mentioned,
as the lieutenant governor of Oklahoma for the past 12 years until I
took this position. I have had the opportunity to work in a bipartisan
manner with both sides of the aisle. In fact, when I was in the
legislature and as lieutenant governor, there were many times that my
Democrat colleagues helped me on various piece of legislation, even
served as the author of some of the reform efforts that I led in our
State. And I believe that many of those that ran for office this year
ran on a platform of coming to Washington, coming to Congress and
solving problems and making things happen and working on issues that we
could find consensus on and doing good things for the people of
America. And we also campaigned on platforms of transparency and
openness and letting
[[Page H501]]
the people of our States' voices be heard here in Washington, D.C.
I have to tell you that I think this past week, in the very short
time that I have been a Member of this body, that we have missed some
real opportunities here in Congress, and that is to let all the
Members' voices be heard, all the voices of the people that we each
represent, and to let the many talents and the knowledge and the
expertise and life experiences that are shared among this body be
allowed to participate in the process.
I have to be honest that after having the opportunity to be sworn in
this past week and also participating in a historic moment of seeing
our first woman speaker selected and elected as the leader of this
body, I have been disappointed. I have been disappointed that many of
our Republican Members have been excluded. Well, I guess you could say
all of them have been excluded from many of the processes of this House
and their voices were not heard.
I heard a debate or discussion a moment ago between our two leaders
about our committee meetings and organizational meetings and that there
have been a few organizational meetings held so far; yet, I ask if
there had been any Members who had attended on our party's side any
organizational meetings and couldn't find anyone yet who has been
invited to attend one. And I know, as a freshman member, I haven't been
invited to attend any of our organizational meetings yet.
Yet, I also heard the leader of the other side say that they are
hopeful that we can all work together. I guess I just have a hard time
understanding how you can work together when you don't allow
amendments, discussion, when you don't allow the minority party's voice
to be heard during a crucial time at the beginning of an opening
session of Congress, especially when there are so many critical issues
that are important to the American people being discussed. And,
frankly, I think my years of experience in Oklahoma, 16 years in
office, and along with the expertise of all the other Members
represented in this body have a lot to contribute. And I felt like I
was slighted of that opportunity, to not be able to contribute like the
minority party should have been.
So I guess I just say that the public has asked us to have
transparency, to have openness in government. I know I heard Speaker
Pelosi say in her opening statements that she wanted three things:
accountability, openness, and honesty. And I hope that as we move
forward next week that all Members of this body will be allowed to have
those things; that we will be allowed to have openness in our
discussion, that we can get back to a routine, a process to where
voices are heard in committees, where legislation is discussed, where
amendments can be made to, where we will be honest with the American
people about what is really transpiring in this body and how we are
going to administer this body, and that we will be fair and respectful
and professional in how we operate in this Congress.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentlewoman from Oklahoma, and I thank
her for the contribution and the insight that she is bringing.
One of the things that we have to realize with legislation that we
pass is it is a partnership effort, whether it is the local, the State,
and the Federal levels working together. And her expertise, with 16
years of State government, as a legislator, as a lieutenant governor,
helping the State chart a new way forward into the 21st century, that
is so vital to the work that we do to be certain that we don't gather
in the power and keep it here in Washington; that we send it to the
States.
And the gentlewoman speaks so eloquently of missed opportunities, of
wanting to bring that expertise to bear, not only for the benefit of
her constituents, but for the benefit of all Americans, to be certain
that we respect this Nation, we respect this House, and that we respect
the sovereignty which each and every one of us hold so very, very dear.
You know, my colleagues have mentioned some of the things that have
taken place this week. And as I said at the outset, the Democrats
brought forward what would be their 100-hour agenda, and they have
talked about the things that they had wanted to pass. And we have heard
some in the 5-minute and 1-minute presentations and the speeches on the
floor that we have got some creative clock keeping going on around
these parts. But, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, when I was in school in
the 1950s and 1960s, they weren't teaching new math, so I just know how
to do it the old way. And going by the old clock, it is 54 hours, 48
minutes, as of the time we gaveled in this morning, that had passed off
the clock.
Now, the American people may be interested to know some of the things
that have transpired in this 54 hours, 48 minutes. As I said, this is
kind of the hang-on-to-your-wallet Congress, because it is expensive.
And what we are seeing that they are doing in the first half of this
100 hours is passing legislation that our small businesses have told
us, that the associations that work with many of these small
businesses, the chambers, the independent business organizations have
said would be crippling to businesses that create three out of every
four new jobs in this country.
Now, you know, somebody may say, well, that doesn't sound that bad.
You know what? When you go back to 2003 and you look at the fact that
we have had nearly 7 million new jobs created since 2003, that is a lot
of jobs. When you look at the fact that personal wages have increased
over 9 percent in the past couple of years, that is a lot of money in
the take-home paycheck. Then you see it makes a difference. Creating
jobs, creating better jobs, creating 21st century jobs is so vitally
important to have a robust economy that is going to work. And the body,
the majority chose to pass a minimum wage bill that was an unfunded
mandate on small business.
Now, I didn't come up with the total of what this is going to cost
small business. I went to the Congressional Budget Office. The
Congressional Budget Office says it is going to be $5 billion to $7
billion in unfunded mandates on small businesses to meet this one piece
of legislation alone.
Now, I tell you, my constituents in Tennessee's Seventh District
aren't willing to fork over another $5 billion to $7 billion out of
their paychecks. They want first right of refusal on their paychecks.
They don't want the Federal Government getting first right of refusal
on their paychecks. The Federal Government takes too much as it is. And
we all know government doesn't have a revenue problem. Goodness
gracious, government has brought in more revenue than ever before in
the past couple of years, and it happened because of tax reductions.
Government has a spending problem, and it has a spending problem
because of programs that have been put in place from the new deal, put
in place from the Lyndon Johnson years, programs that have grown and
grown and grown and have never been reduced. That is why we have a
spending problem. And I have said many years, the bureaucracy in this
town is a monument to the Democrats. They are the ones that built it
through the 1940s, through the 1950s, through the 1960s, and it is like
that plant in Little Shop of Horrors: Feed me, Seymour. Give me more
money. It is what it is going to take to keep it going. So it is an
expensive, expensive 54 hours, 48 minutes.
My colleague from Tennessee mentioned a little bit about the tax and
spending, and I pulled an article out of the Wall Street Journal. There
again, not the opinion of me, but the opinion of some of those that are
watching this process. And he spoke a little bit about making it easier
to raise taxes and the provision that was adjusted in the rules
package. And I think this is so important for our constituents to know.
We have had a rule went into place in 1994 with Speaker Gingrich that
provided that a three-fifths majority of the House was required to
raise taxes. Well, our friends, our colleagues across the aisle have
decided to put a loophole that you could drop that or waive that rule
with a simple majority. That is very unfortunate. Very unfortunate. And
it is disappointing.
The way we are going to reduce the size of government is to reduce
the size of spending. And as my colleagues have said, that is what the
American people want. Government is too big, too bureaucratic, too
arrogant and too unresponsive. We saw it in Katrina. We see it any time
we try to get through to a Federal agency and dial a number and
[[Page H502]]
get put on hold and told to punch another number and then told to
select a language we want to hear it in. Those are the problems that
frustrate every single one of us, and the way we address it is to
reduce what government has to spend. As I said, crippling small
businesses with the legislation that they have passed, making it easier
to raise taxes.
Also the majority party refused to acknowledge morally sound proven
life-saving stem cell treatments that are going to spend your tax
dollars. They are going to spend your tax dollars. American people, I
hope you hear this one. They are going to spend your tax dollars on
ethically controversial research that has never produced results. That
is in our stem cell legislation. And then today we have had a vote on
the Medicare part D. They are voting to revamp a very successful,
highly popular Medicare part D, has over a 75 percent approval rating,
and they have voted to revamp that.
And in the midst of all of this, we have Tunagate. And the Speaker
had I understand has retracted her comments or has said that she is
going to have this provision addressed. But we had the Del Monte
Corporation that owns StarKist Tuna involved in this, and it seems that
American Samoa is where they have their plant. And, Mr. Speaker, it was
brought to our attention that they were exempted from the minimum wage
law.
{time} 1600
We do hope that that is addressed. But I have pulled a sheet, again,
not my thoughts but this is coming out of Congress Daily, and I just
wanted to read a comment that was in the article discussing this
employer from the Speaker's district with the work that they do over in
American Samoa with tuna. And they are talking about the
competitiveness of the tuna industry and why they don't need a raise in
the minimum wage.
And it was so very interesting to me because this company and this
delegate is saying, well, we don't want the minimum wage raised because
it would hurt our competitiveness. Now, I guess, Mr. Speaker that it is
fine for Del Monte Corporation or for American Samoa to say that but it
is not fine for my small business owners in the Seventh District of
Tennessee to say that. It is not fine for small business owners around
the country to say that. But I guess the majority thinks it is fine to
vote for $5 billion to $7 billion, with a ``b,'' worth of unfunded
mandates on small businesses.
Now, these were the comments from the delegate from American Samoa
today regarding the minimum wage, and I am quoting from Congress Daily:
``The truth is the global tuna industry is so competitive that it is no
longer possible for the Federal Government to demand mainland minimum
wage rates for American Samoa without causing the collapse of our
economy and making us welfare wards of the Federal Government.''
Mr. Speaker, every single business we have in this country is subject
to global competition. It does not matter if we are in hardwoods or if
we are in softwoods. If we are in hardwoods and producing furniture, we
have got global competition. If we are in softwoods and we are
producing pulp, we have got global competition. If we are in California
growing tomatoes, we have got global competition. If we are a citrus
producer and farmer in Florida, we have got global competition. If we
are a shrimp farmer in Mississippi, we have got global competition.
Mr. Speaker, if it is good for American Samoa not to have a minimum
wage, maybe we need to think about what we are doing to other small
businesses and small business manufacturers. Do we really, really,
really want to pass $5 billion to $7 billion worth of unfunded mandates
on the producers of our Nation's jobs, three out of every four jobs, 7
million new jobs in the past couple of years? Mr. Speaker, I would
submit to you that that is a failed policy. It is a failed policy.
What we need to be doing is continuing to do what the Republicans as
a majority did in this House, which was looking after the American
taxpayers' pocket and making certain that they kept more of that
paycheck at the end of the month; making certain that small businesses
enjoyed tax relief, increased expensing, increased opportunities for
depreciation; making certain that they had the ability to grow those
small businesses and invest in those small businesses because that, Mr.
Speaker, is how you grow an economy and that is how you grow jobs.
And as I said earlier, we have seen it play out, that when you reduce
those taxes, when you leave that money with the taxpayer, they reinvest
it, they grow those jobs, and guess what. The Federal Government ends
up with more revenues. We had record years in 2005 and 2006 in Federal
Government revenues, and it happened because of good tax policy that
left more money with the taxpayer.
I mentioned also that the Democrats had refused to acknowledge
morally sound, proven, lifesaving stem cell treatments and they are
wanting to use your tax dollars on controversial treatments.
At this time I would like to yield to Dr. Weldon, the gentleman from
Florida, who is, indeed, one of our foremost authorities on this issue.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding, and I commend her for calling this Special Order.
We have concluded now the first complete week under the Democrat
majority rule, and I think it is worth talking about what their
accomplishments have been. And I am very glad you brought up the issue
of stem cells.
I am a physician, as you pointed out. I practiced medicine for 15
years before coming to the House. Indeed, I still see patients.
Internal medicine. Many of my patients had Alzheimer's disease and
Parkinson's disease, the diseases that these folks claim they are going
to cure with embryonic stem cells.
And to me I think it is really very unfortunate what they have been
doing. It is really creating what I feel is false hope. Indeed, it is a
deception to tell people that embryonic stem cells have that kind of
potential.
And the reason I say that is embryonic stem cells have never been
shown to be safe in animal studies. They have never really been studied
in humans, whereas adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells
have not only been shown to be safe in clinical therapeutics, but they
have also been tested not only in animals and shown to be safe, but
they have been given to human beings and shown to be effective and to
work; whereas embryonic stem cells have a chronic problem, you might
say. They form tumors, a specific type of tumor called the teratoma, in
every animal study in which they have been used. And before embryonic
stem cells could ever be used in any clinical application whatsoever,
they have to first be shown to be safe. And for them to be shown to be
safe, somebody has to turn off this property that they have to form
tumors. And yet we saw person after person parading down to the floor
saying these embryonic stem cells are going to cure this and cure this
and cure that. And lo and behold, it is quite possible they will cure
absolutely nothing.
Indeed, what is very, very interesting, and this just came out this
past week, the week that the Democrats, in my opinion, are putting this
deception forward on the American people, is it has been shown that
amniotic fluid is filled with stem cells that have all of the
properties of embryonic stem cells. They can do all the things and they
behave just like embryonic stem cells, but they do not form tumors.
And, of course, these cells are plentiful. They are noncontroversial.
You don't have to kill a human embryo, which is what you have to do to
get embryonic stem cells. You have to kill a human life. You have to
kill a human embryo at its earliest stages to get those stem cells out,
whereas amniotic fluid-derived stem cells behave just like the
embryonic stem cells. They do all the things the embryonic stem cells
do, but they don't form tumors. So they have tremendous potential
application in clinical therapeutics.
So to me it was unfortunate, the deceptive messaging that went out
from this body. And, indeed, it seemed to me like the bulk of the
American press corps buys it hook, line, and sinker that these cures
are around the corner. But in reality science is moving to a place
where embryonic stem cells are not going to be used.
And the other thing is they have been studied for 25 years. There
were many people who came to the floor and
[[Page H503]]
said this research is just beginning. The Journal of Science had a
cover story about 6 months ago on embryonic stem cells. ``Twenty-Five
Years of Study'' was the cover. It was not 8 years. It is not a new
field of study. It is actually an old field of study, and it is a field
of study that, in my opinion, may yield knowledge and you may be able
to write a Ph.D. thesis based on the material that you discover or
learn from embryonic stem cells.
And, of course, we are funding it. We are funding it through the NIH
right now. We are increasing funding each year, embryonic stem cell
research, on the cell lines that exist at the NIH. And really all this
study did was just to prove the destruction of more embryos, and that
is really what the bill is all about. And this is a critical line in
the sand, you might say, that our Nation's research establishment is
moving across. We are now going to say that it is okay to take these
forms of human life and exploit them in the lab, destroy them for
therapeutic purposes, and we have never gone down that path before.
And that is not where it will end. They are saying now it is the
``excess embryos'' from the fertility clinics. They will come back next
and say, well, there really wasn't that many available in those clinics
and we really need to create human embryos for research purposes and we
need to specifically create them through a process called cloning. They
want to do human cloning. That is creating human life through the
process of cloning for their ``research,'' and this is what they always
do in all the arguments, saying what it will cure.
So before I yield back, I just want to say they were deceptive not
just in their stem cell arguments. You were talking about taxes when I
came to the floor. To me it was so ironic, or deceptive, almost like a
culture of deception, in my opinion. They passed PAYGO and said no more
are we going to pay for things if we don't have the funds to do it, and
then the next day they waived PAYGO on their homeland security bill. I
mean they get up and they say they are going to do all these things,
and the very next day they waived that rule requirement in their
homeland security bill. Furthermore, they had absolutely no explanation
of how we were going to fund the provisions in their bill.
The Washington Post, a liberal Democrat newspaper, speculated that
the cargo-screening requirements that they put in that bill, which the
industry says is unnecessary, could end up costing our economy hundreds
of billions of dollars. That is the Washington Post. An anti-Republican
newspaper said that. They put that in there, and they have no
explanation of how they are going to pay for it.
And, of course, I guess the ultimate irony was all the talk about
doing away with earmarks and then they pass a minimum wage bill through
the House that has a special earmark that was placed in there by
somebody that benefited a company in Speaker Pelosi's congressional
district, which, to me, is absolutely unbelievable.
But, anyway, I have covered a lot of territory. I really came to talk
about stem cells, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
And if you will yield for a question, I want to be certain that I
understood a couple of the comments that you made pertaining to stem
cells and pertaining to the research because you have been such a
leader on this. And I think we both would commend Dr. Burgess, the
gentleman from Texas, who crafted our motion to recommit yesterday and
worked diligently on that to be certain that cloning could not possibly
take place.
But I want to be certain that we are clear on this and my
constituents are clear on what you were saying because finding answers
to some of the debilitating illnesses that many of our family members
and friends have is important to each and every one of us and it is
something that we are committed to.
And the gentleman has practiced medicine for so many years. I have
spent many volunteer hours working on different boards, not for
profits, for health care associations, whether it is the Arthritis
Foundation or the Lung Association or the Cancer Society, and all of
them are interested in this issue.
But I want to be certain that I understood you correctly, that
according to the Journal of Science, they have documented 25 years'
worth of research that has been done on different types of stem cell
research and stem cell therapies and that much of this is taking place
at the NIH and that we are, indeed, funding much of that research at
the NIH. And I think that is important for people to understand.
And I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Well, you are absolutely right. Adult stem
cell research in humans has been funded for about 25, maybe even 30
years. Embryonic stem cell research in the mouse began about 25 years
ago.
{time} 1615
In the mid-1990s, the House and Senate passed and President Clinton
signed into law a provision that said no Federal funds would go to any
research that involved the destruction of a human embryo.
Shortly after that a doctor by the name of Jamie Thompson, I think it
is, at the University of Wisconsin was successful in extracting
embryonic stem cells from a human embryo. People had been doing that in
the mouse, but I guess nobody had either the technique or the hutzpah,
as my Jewish friends like to say, to actually destroy a human embryo in
his lab. But he did that. He successfully isolated the human embryonic
stem cell. And then researchers wanted to get Federal funding. This has
always been about Federal funding.
We don't have a law restricting embryo research. People can do it. I
think a lot of it is unethical, but there is no law barring it. This is
all about getting the government to fund it.
Under the Clinton policy, because we had a law in place saying you
can't get funding if you are destroying an embryo, what the Clinton
people did is they destroyed the embryos in an outside lab, and then
sent the embryonic stem cells over to the NIH and they funded the
research. I and several other Members wrote the Clinton administration
a letter saying you may not be violating the letter of the law, but you
are certainly violating the spirit of the law. That is what President
Bush inherited in 2000 when he became President of the United States.
What President Bush said, which I think is a reasonable thing, all of
these embryos have been destroyed and all of these cell lines are being
studied at the NIH. We don't want to throw them away. The embryos have
been destroyed, but we don't want to keep destroying embryos, so we
will continue to fund research on these embryos, we just won't destroy
any more embryos. That is really what this debate has been about. The
people on the other side of the debate have been saying this has so
much incredible promise so we have to fund it. Even though, by the way,
the biotech industry won't fund it; venture capitalists won't fund it.
We want Uncle Sam and taxpayers to fund it, 50 percent of whom are pro-
life and are opposed to this kind of research, because it ``has so much
promise,'' quote/unquote, is what they have been arguing.
When you actually look at the data, it really doesn't bear up to
scrutiny. That is the fundamental point of my argument. If you look at
the science, the science shows a lot of potential with adult stem
cells, cord blood stem cells, and now these new amniotic fluid derived
stem cells. The embryonic stem cells form tumors. Their potential
application to therapeutics, I think, is very small, remote, unlikely.
You have to turn off their ability to form tumors before they can be
used.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. This is
something that has been funded here. There is funding that is there for
the adult stem cell lines, the cord blood lines, and the amniotic fluid
lines with the research that was presented last week from the
scientists and researchers from Wake Forest and Harvard that are all
proven. They are proven with results.
I thank the gentleman for the clarification on that and for the
excellent work that he does for this body in making certain that the
deception is peeled away and people realize where the commitment of the
Republicans, the minority in Congress, lie in being certain that we
protect the American taxpayers and we protect the morals
[[Page H504]]
and values on which our Nation stands. I thank the gentleman.
Now I want to talk about the Medicare vote that took place today.
There is a saying when I was growing up, Mr. Speaker, if it ain't
broke, don't fix it.
This is a program our seniors will tell us over 75 percent are fine
with this. If any of my colleagues were to say I get 75 percent of the
vote when I go to the polls, that would be a landslide of monumental,
monumental proportions.
But they want to take this program and change it for the sake of
changing it. They have been asked by the American Legion not to do
this, by the ALS Association not to do this. Epilepsy, don't change
this, it is working. It is working.
The thing that I thought was so unfortunate was with our veterans and
changing the pricing and price controls going into place, we have to
realize the VA system is very different from the Medicare system. The
VA system, it is comparing apples and oranges. The VA system is a
direct provision of those health care services. Medicare Part D is an
insurance plan, and we know that the prices come down on that. Some
States have plans that are under $20 a month. The plan is about $200
billion less than was estimated when it first went into place.
So it is so interesting that the Democrats decided they wanted to
change this plan. Let me just read some of the quotes from some of the
groups that oppose the price controls that were put in place today.
Groups that oppose, and I have heard estimates as high as $750 million
extra that it is going to cost VA on this plan. Let me read the
comments from some of these groups.
The American Legion, a group everybody knows, it is a veterans
service organization, has nearly 3 million members and yesterday they
sent out a letter opposing H.R. 4 asking for a ``no'' vote saying, ``It
is not in the best interest of America's veterans and their families.''
Again quoting, ``Every time the Federal Government has enacted
pharmaceutical price control legislation, the Department of Veterans
Affairs experiences significant increases in its pharmaceutical cost as
an unintended consequence.''
Mr. Speaker, those are not my words, those are the words of the
American Legion on behalf of the 3 million veterans they represent
asking that this not be done.
So in addition to passing $5 to $7 billion of unfunded mandates on to
the Nation's small businesses, in addition to passing hundreds of
billions of dollars worth of extra cost to our shippers because of the
homeland security provisions, you also are going to put nearly three-
quarters of a billion of extra cost onto the Veterans Administration
health services.
I tell you what, as I said, Mr. Speaker, this is hang-onto-your-
wallet Congress because in the first 54 hours and 48 minutes that is
where we have gotten. It is a lot of money, and the tote board just
seems to be adding right on up.
The ALS Association, Lou Gehrig's disease, voiced strong opposition
to H.R. 4 saying, ``Legislation that authorizes the Federal Government
to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices will significantly limit
the ability of people with ALS to access the drugs they need, and will
seriously jeopardize the future development of treatments for the
disease.'' Those are not my words, that is the ALS Association in their
opposition to the legislation that this body passed.
Epilepsy Foundation, and I am quoting from their letter, ``Access to
the right medications for epilepsy can make the difference between
living in the community, being employed, and leading a healthy and
productive life. The consequences of denying the appropriate medication
for an individual with epilepsy can be life threatening and can include
injury, emergency room visits, hospitalization or other types of costly
medical interventions.''
Mr. Speaker, that is the Epilepsy Foundation asking that the bill the
majority passed today, H.R. 4, not pass because of the implications for
those who suffer with epilepsy in securing the medications that they
need.
Now here is the National Alliance for Mental Illness. They have had
reservations and concerns about this legislation. I am quoting from
their letter, ``NAMI is extremely concerned that placing this new legal
mandate on the secretary would directly result in loss of the all or
substantially-all guidance in the six protected classes and therefore
poses a significant risk to Medicare beneficiaries with mental
illness.''
Mr. Speaker, these again are not my words. They are concerns that
have been expressed. They have been expressed by individuals that were
concerned about what they saw happening in the first 100 hours in this
administration.
What people thought they were going to see was transparency. They
thought they were going to see openness. They thought they were going
to see a willingness to step towards bipartisanship.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that what we have seen is missed
opportunities. We have seen a closed process. The Rules Committee has
not functioned. Legislation has gone straight to the floor. No debate
in committee. No open process, and that has been unfortunate for the
people of this Nation.
As I close, I will once again say that one of the things that does
concern us is the impact on the American taxpayer and figuring out who
is going to pay for this. Mr. Speaker, it does appear, it absolutely
does appear that it is going to be the American taxpayer that is going
to see government grow, government expand and government is going to
continue to expand in the 110th Congress.
____________________