[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.

                          ____________________