Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 366 to congratulate NASA on the 25th anniversary of the inaugural Space Shuttle mission.

Twenty-five years ago on April 12th, all Americans were riveted to the activities taking place at Kennedy Space Center. The excitement was even more palpable in my Congressional District--America's Space Coast.

How proud Americans were that day when, after 2 years of training and preparation, Space Shuttle Columbia lifted into space, boosted not only by 7 million pounds of thrust but, more importantly, by the ingenuity and imagination of the American people.

America had selected two incredibly capable astronauts for this first shuttle mission--Bob Crippen, a decorated Naval aviator, and John Young, a veteran of the Gemini and Apollo programs. Our Nation needed the best astronauts for this mission since the risks were immense. As the most complex spacecraft ever built, the Shuttle Columbia had countless possibilities for error and serious disaster.

STS-1 served as a 2-day test flight of the first reusable, piloted spacecraft's ability to go into orbit and return safely to Earth. NASA's goal was to herald in a new era of spaceflight and it succeeded.

The astronauts are obviously the most visible face on Space Shuttle missions. And while I, like everyone else, extend the utmost praise to Young and Crippen for their extraordinary talent and boldness, it was the highly skilled and competent NASA and contractor workforce that made this shuttle mission possible. As with the astronauts, America needed its best and brightest to build and launch the Space Shuttle back in 1981 and it remains so today.

From the scientists and engineers to the launch crews and contractor personnel, each Shuttle launch is a manifestation of the pride that the people of the Space Coast have in America's space program.

Each launch lifts the spirits of all Americans and nothing gives those from the Space Coast more honor than serving as America's entryway to space. Today, the people of the Space Coast feel as honored to be America's space launch center as they did 25 years ago.

And as a representative from America's Space Coast, I share in the feelings of pride in past achievements as well as the expectation of success in the new NASA missions that will launch from our community.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 60, 61, and 62, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the President's budget. As a physician who used to take care of a lot of Medicare patients prior to my election in 1994, one of the first things I look at in the budget are the Medicare numbers, after I look at the NASA numbers and a couple of other things.

Members of this body need to know, and the American public, that the President's budget calls for a 15 percent increase in Medicare spending. You may be surprised to hear that because the press is talking about Medicare cuts. Indeed, Democrats are talking about Medicare cuts. You even heard that on the floor today.

It is projected to go from $396 billion to $457 billion in 2007, and by 2011 to grow to $587 billion. Where is the cut? There is no cut. The President is trying to slow the growth of this entitlement program, which is unsustainable in the future unless we can enact significant reforms. God bless us if we are unable to do that.

This is, in my opinion, the right thing to do for the President, and he needs to be commended. And for those who mischaracterize this as a cut, they need to start telling the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House regarding a recent article just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

As my colleagues know, I practiced medicine for about 15 years before my election to the House in 1994 and I continue to see patients about once a month at the veterans clinic in my congressional district. And juggling the burdens of my congressional position, I continue to try to read the medical literature. And one of the journals that I take is the Journal of the American Medical Association. And I have been engaged in an ongoing debate in this body regarding the potential usefulness of embryonic stem cells versus adult stem cells, and I have been advocating the position that the medical literature and the scientific literature is replete with evidence that adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells are proven to be highly efficacious in human applications, in treating human diseases, and that embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, not only have they never been successfully used in a human clinical trial, and you cannot show me one research article where an embryonic stem cell has been used to help a human being, they have not really been shown to be very efficacious even in animals. We do not today have a good animal model of an animal disease, say, an animal model of diabetes, where embryonic stem cells have been successfully used to cure those animals, whereas that has been done with adult stem cells in the case of diabetes in mice. It was done years ago, as a matter of fact. They tried to do that with embryonic stem cells and it failed.

And what is very significant is this article just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, they had some 50 patients, almost, enrolled in a study, and they used adult stem cell treatments for what we call refractory or basically untreatable systemic lupus erythematosus.

Systemic lupus is a terrible disease. It affects 1.5 million Americans. Ninety percent of them are women. It is also a disease that is very common in minorities, two to three times more prevalent in minorities. The traditional treatment has not changed for 40 years. We have not had a new drug for this, and it is typically the use of what we call glucocorticords or steroids and other immunosuppressive drugs, some of the drugs that we use for cancer. Very significant side effects. No new drugs in 40 years. And it can lead to very, very serious complications, to include renal failure and to have to go on dialysis. And of this group, 48 people enrolled, they cured, cured, 33 people. No disease symptoms, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's flagship JAMA. Richard K. Burt is the lead author. There are about 10different authors. Burt is at the University of Chicago. I know about his work. I went there to see this guy years ago because he was doing so many innovative things and using adult stem cells, and he has cured 33 people. Some of them they have been following as long as 7 years, disease free.

Mr. Speaker, this has never been done before where they can actually take somebody with severe lupus, and the only people they can typically get enrolled in these clinical trials are the bad ones that are not responding to drugs. So these are the worst cases. They are not responding to drugs. Adult stem cell transplants, and he has cured 33 of 48 patients.

Just another point to make that adult stem cells are showing tremendous clinical promise. In this particular medical group at the University of Chicago, they have treated about 50 different diseases with adult stem cells. Tremendous promise. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, no promise has been shown in humans to date. And as well I will reiterate they do not as yet have a good animal model that they will ever work. They are prone to form tumors called teratomas when they are used in treatment, and there are immune complications. There are a whole host of complications in animals while they try to use them.

So I wanted to bring all my colleagues up to date on this very important piece of research. It is good news for Americans with lupus who are not responding to drugs. Stem cells work. But it is adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4437, The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. This is a good bill that takes some important steps to curb illegal immigration, secure our borders and make America safer.

The bill takes a broad range of actions to secure our Nation. These include imposing tougher penalties for those who smuggle illegal immigrants into the U.S. and for those who overstay their visas. Individuals involved in making and using fraudulent documents will face stiffer penalties. We also end the ``catch and release'' policy that allows apprehended illegal immigrants to slip away unnoticed and live illegally in the U.S. as they will no longer simply be released back into the community.

With regard to granting immigration benefits, i.e., citizenship, green cards, permanent residency, the bill ends the practice of granting such benefits to those for whom a background check has not been completed. Immigration benefits should not be handed out simply because a certain number of days have passed since the investigation was commenced. Perhaps the background check approval is being delayed because of the need to fully investigate a possible criminal or terrorism risks.

Current law denies immigration benefits to those who are classified as habitual drunkards, but not those affiliated with terrorist organizations. This bill fixes that problem by making sure that illegal immigrants who are deportable on terrorist grounds are deported without delay.

H.R. 4437 requires employers to verify that prospective employees are legally employable. The bill ensures that a system is in place for employers to verify the legal status of such job applicants and it provides penalties for employers who violate these laws. The bill also prohibits federal funds provided under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to any state or local government that maintains a ``sanctuary policy'' for illegal immigrants.

In order to ensure that we have a better understanding of just who is crossing illegally into the U.S. the bill requires the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to report to Congress on the number of illegal aliens apprehended who are from non-contiguous countries, with a particular emphasis on ascertaining the number of individuals from countries known to harbor terrorists. DHS is also to provide the Congress with a timeline for fully equipping all land borders with the US-VISIT entry/exit system.

On a 260-159 vote, the House mandated the construction of security fencing, including lights and cameras, along the Southwest border in sectors with the highest number of illegal border crossings, drug smuggling, and immigrant deaths. Additionally, DHS will be required to conduct a study and report back to Congress on the use of physical barriers along the Northern border.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4437 moves us in the right direction of addressing the serious problem of illegal immigration making the United States more secure.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the subcommittee chairman for his leadership on this issue.

I am not an OB/GYN, but as a general internist, I performed numerous Pap smears. I was not here in 1992 when this statute was put in place. If I had been, I would have voted against it. I do not think the Federal Government has any business being in this process.

I have to ask everybody in the Chamber a question: Why do we want to have a special test only for the pathologists? Why not a Federal test for the doctor performing the Pap smear? I frequently did breast exams at the same time. Why not a special test, a Federal test, for that? What about the mammogram? Why not a Federal exam for a mammogram?

We obviously do not do that for obvious reasons. Professional societies govern these issues. State statutes govern them, and this is just a huge area.

Physicians of various specialties perform a multitude of different tests. They review and do a multitude of different procedures, and it would virtually be impossible; it would involve a colossal expansion of the Federal Government into essentially an area traditionally of commerce.

Now, understanding, as I do, that this is in the law, another reason why this is a bad law is just the way it has played out. Thirteen years for the regulatory agency to finally bring regulations to the process, to put them forward, and, lo and behold, surprise, surprise, they are completely outdated. They are completely inconsistent with what has been going on.

Litigation forces and the College of American Pathology's policies have changed the landscape, and now you essentially have many pathologists, as my physician colleague Dr. Price said earlier, and I commend him for his leadership on this, many pathologists have abandoned this. And you literally have certain pathologists who are specializing in this. They read them all the time. They go to seminars all the time. When they get difficult smears, they take them to the university. They bring their colleagues in the room.

To me, this is a wasteful and inappropriate involvement of the Federal Government, and I am very, very pleased that the other side of the aisle is willing to go along with this 1-year delay. Hopefully, the Senate will approve this.

What I hope is, ultimately, we repeal this, because I believe it is completely unnecessary, and it is inserting the Federal Government in a place that I do not think the American public would really want us to be, and that is into the details of the practice of medicine, carving out one specific area of pathology. Why are we not credentialing pathologists who read thyroid biopsies? That can be very, very important. What about breast biopsies? So to single this out, to me it is almost bizarre.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of the subcommittee. I am certainly looking forward to working with him in the year ahead. I certainly commend the ranking member for his willingness to allow this to move forward, and I do hope the Senate concurs, and we are able to pass this.

What the bill does?

In 1992 CMS, HCFA, proposed regulations that would require proficiency testing of pathology labs for pap tests.

Those regs sat on the shelf for the past 13 years, until earlier this year CMS decided to implement these 13-year-old regs.

This bill simply delays for one more year the implementation of these regulations and asks CMS to update their regulations to reflect the practice of medicine today both within the pathology labs and in how clinicians respond to those lab tests.

Why is this bill necessary?

CMS dusted off 13-year-old regs that do not reflect the current practice of medicine.

CMS is requiring that pathologists examine these test exams in a vacuum; however, pathologists and cytologist practice in a team today. The CMS regulations don't reflect this change in practice; they are testing in a manner that does not reflect how a pathology is practiced today.

The test asks pathologists/cytologists to distinguish between high- and low-grade lesions.

In 1992 the standard of practice for low-grade lesions was to continue repeat cytology testing while colposcoply and biopsy were ordered for high-grade lesions.

The standard of practice today is to order colposcopy and biopsy for both high- and low-grade lesions.

The exam also applies a double standard for scoring--one test for cytologists and another higher standard for pathologists.

Who Has Asked CMS to Delay These Regs

Ten national pathology and cytology organizations; 49 State pathology medical societies; over 120 Members of Congress wrote CMS in October asking CMS to delay this testing; even CMS's own Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee, CLIAC, unanimously moved that CMS revise the cytology PT regulations to reflect current practice, evidence based guidelines and antipated changes in technology.

Conclusion

This bill will provide for only a 1-year delay of these regulations so that CMS can update the regulations that they left sitting on the shelf for the past 13 years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of this piece of legislation. I am extremely pleased that we were able to see the Senate finally move it forward and that it is going to move from here on to the President's desk.

The reason I am very pleased is this is not theoretical, as some treatment modalities that we often talk about in this body. This is real and now. There have been 67 different diseases in humans reported in the medical literature successfully treated with cord blood. So we are not even talking about research anymore. We are talking about clinical applications.

Indeed, one of those diseases I am most excited about, and that is sickle cell anemia. I had the opportunity to treat sickle cell anemia in my clinical practice, and I can tell my colleagues here that is one of the most unfortunate conditions to see a young child writhing in pain on a gurney in an emergency room in a sickle cell crisis. And to be told that cord blood stem cells have cured children with sickle cell anemia, I never thought in my life that I would actually see the day when sickle cell anemia could be cured.

This bill authorizes funds for the expansion of the existing bone marrow bank, which is a bank that essentially I am registered with. It has my name, and if somebody needs a transplant, they can try to find me and get my blood, but in this case, we are taking the placental blood and the cord blood from 3 million live births a year and creating a bank so that everybody would have a match and the potential for regenerative medicine would be here and now.

So I am very, very pleased that we are bringing this to the floor. I am very glad it is finally going to move on to the President's desk, because people will be helped by this now. I am also very delighted to have been part of it, and Mr. Smith deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his unflagging efforts on this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Boehlert for yielding me this time, and I commend him and Ranking Member Gordon for the hard work they did. It was a long process moving this piece of legislation through. I also want to commend Subcommittee Chairman Calvert. I know he worked very hard on this.

It is now almost 2 years since President Bush first enunciated a vision to go back to the Moon and on to Mars; to develop a new space vehicle to replace the space shuttle. We in the House quickly recognized when the President put forward this ambitious plan, and it was a wonderful thing the President did in doing this, because many people felt it was the first time since Jack Kennedy's original call to go to the Moon by the end of the decade of the 1960s, that it was the first time since then that a President had boldly stood up and proclaimed a vision for NASA.

We knew then, Members of the House, that we would need new authorizing legislation, particularly for the process of retiring the space shuttle and bringing a new man-rated launch vehicle on line that would have the capability of carrying men and women into space.

This legislation is very important. It is very needed. Though I tend to focus mainly on the issues that pertain to the manned space flight program, as the representative of the area that includes Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center, this legislation has important sections that deal with our Nation's critical investment in aeronautics research and science; and, therefore, it is critically important that we pass this legislation as we move forward next year.

The bill calls for additional funding for NASA in the 2006 appropriation, as well as 2007 and 2008, that will meet the critical needs for our Nation's aerospace industries and our manned space flight program in the years ahead. I commend the work of all those involved.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill.

I believe this piece of legislation is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will take up in the 109th Congress, and I do not believe it is getting an adequate level of public attention considering the enormity of the significance.

In my 11 years in the House of Representatives, I have seen more and more the movement of our economy into a global economy where our U.S. corporations are increasingly finding themselves having to compete no longer with other domestic corporations, but foreign companies that operate under very, very different rules in their domestic country of origin, and particularly as it relates to pension plans.

What I am getting at, Madam Speaker, is that we desperately need to modernize our pension laws and probably most importantly, more than anything else, we have seen tragically, in recent years, many workers come to their retirement years to find that their pension plans are insolvent, that the company that had guaranteed them a retirement is bankrupt, and increasingly that these pension plans are underfunded.

Now is this a perfect bill? No. There is no bill that comes through a legislative process as complex as this involving two committees that anybody can label as perfect. But this is moving us in the right direction. We are going to go to conference with the Senate and what is going to emerge is going to be a good bill. I think this is a very good product.

Chairman Boehner and Chairman Thomas deserve a great deal of credit for the effort and hard work they have put into this. I believe this is going to have ramifications for protecting our workers and making our companies more competitive in this global marketplace so we can increasing compete effectively and create jobs and protect jobs and defend the hardworking American people who are depending on these retirement plans to be there in their retirement years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and strong support of the underlying bill. As was previously stated on the debate on the rule on the pension bill, let us not make the perfect enemy of the good. This is not a good bill; it is a very good bill. It is a step in the right direction. Yes, we do need to do more.

I have been saying for years there is no greater disconnect between the will of the American people and the inside-the-Beltway environment than on this issue of border security and illegal immigration, and we are finally taking a strong step in the right direction here.

I want to address one of the most important features in this issue, and that is the fundamental issue of security, of securing our borders. The American people know that coming across the border are some people, and the FBI Director has testified to this effect in the committee that I serve on, there are some people who are not economic immigrants. They are coming from countries other than Mexico, Middle Eastern countries; they are here to do us harm. So it is desperately important we secure our borders.

This bill gets at one of the most important things that I think we need to address, and that is employer sanctions. I want to share with my colleagues a story. My brother-in-law installs air-conditioning systems on construction sites in New York, and he told me the story of how on one Monday morning he saw a new man on that construction site and he asked the gentleman to explain to him in his broken English when he came to the United States. He said that he had come on Saturday. He had come across the American border and he had gone to a safe house in the Southwest, gotten a plane ticket, flew to New York specifically for a job that was waiting for him there.

We need to put a stop to this, and we need stronger sanctions against employers. We need better enforcement of our existing laws. This is a national security issue. We desperately need to pass this bill, and we need to do more to end this way of illegal immigration and secure our borders.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to commend him for producing a very good bill, and I want to commend the full committee chairman, Mr. Lewis.

I came to Congress 11 years ago, and over that 11-year time period, I have seen the size of this bill more than double. The working families in my congressional district have not seen their incomes double in that time period.

We have seen unprecedented challenges that we have had to face this year, Hurricane Katrina, recovery from that, Hurricane Wilma, which significantly affected my district and the State I live in, and then, of course, we are fighting a war, a war on terror in this country.

This is a very, very responsible bill. It is a good bill. I just ask all Members to keep in mind, you will hear statements that this bill is going to devastate health care in America. We have an over $13 trillion economy. We spend more than 17 percent on health care. The discretionary accounts in this bill represent less than one-tenth of 1 percent of total health care expenditures.

This is a very, very good bill. It is a very responsible bill, and it is good policy.

I am a conservative. I came here to act in a responsible fashion, and that is what this bill does. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for it. And I again commend the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to commend the gentleman for his outstanding work on this piece of legislation. The chairman is, I believe, well noted on both sides of the aisle for being a very compassionate and caring person, but as well a responsible adult.

When I travel around my congressional district, yes, it is true there are certain groups that would like to see areas of this bill increased. The things I hear overwhelmingly and most loudly is that these are difficult times. We have had tremendous outlays and expenditures with Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq and that we really need to hold the line on spending. And what this bill does, I believe, is unprecedented in my 11 years of being here in the House of Representatives. It actually reduces spending from last year. So this is not Washingtonspeak gimmicks where you take a 7 percent increase and reduce it to a 6.9 percent increase and scream and yell about that being a cut. This is a real reduction in spending, and I think it is quite impressive. It eliminates 21 existing programs and cancels eight new programs.

What Chairman Regula has done is adopted a philosophy which I think everybody in the Congress should adopt, look at programs very seriously and are they getting the job done. And if they are not, they should be eliminated. And contrary to Reagan's statement that the only thing that has eternal life in Washington, D.C. is a Federal program, Chairman Regula has been able to reduce and eliminate 21 existing programs because they were not effective.

Within that context, the bill includes, I think, a number of important increases along the lines of what I believe the American people want to see. They are small in the budget realities we are dealing with now, nonetheless, they are real. The Pell Grant amount was increased so that we could keep the size of the grant the same. Additionally, there are some small increases for special education and title 1. I want to particularly commend the chairman for holding the line on the Weldon language. We have had in this bill for, as I understand it, decades, conscience protections for health care providers that do not want to perform abortions.

But in recent years, very aggressive abortion rights advocates have been putting pressure, using regulatory agencies and State governments and courts on hospitals and other institutions to begin performing abortions when the officials and the workers in those institutions did not want to do that. And what we have done is held the existing language from last year, which, I think, is the right policy for the Congress. It is the right policy for the American people. So I commend all my colleagues to vote for this bill. It is a good piece of legislation. It is the right thing for this country at this time and our history with the challenges that we face today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4128, legislation to address the U.S. Supreme Court's June 23, 2005, decision in Kelo v. City of New London. This ruling by the Court deeply concerns me, and that is why I rise in strong support of this bill.

It has long been established that the United States may invoke its power of eminent domain to take private property if it is for ``public use.'' However, in its Kelo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has broken dangerous, new ground by redefining public use. Under Kelo, no longer is the government limited in its acquisition of private property to the creation of roads, military bases, parks, and so forth. Instead, the takings clause has been reinterpreted to allow a government to seize private property from one individual and give it to another private individual, if the local government deems that such condemnation and transfer of property serves a public purpose.

The result of such a decision played out to its logical extreme was seen days after the ruling, when Logan Clements took initial steps to seize the Weare, NH, home of Supreme Court Justice David Souter. On that site, he hoped to build ``The Lost Liberty Hotel,'' which would leave copies of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged in each room, and have a museum exhibit on the loss of freedom in America.

While this may have been done more to make a point than with serious intent or concern for the economic development of Weare, NH, it does illustrate the dangers of the Kelo decision. There is nothing to prevent a local planning board from seizing homes, businesses, churches, or other property if, in the opinions of some, a more economically productive purpose for that land may be pursued. Private property rights are drastically eroded by Kelo and they must be restored.

Government should not be permitted to take property from one individual and give it to another. Thanks to the precedent of Kelo, the private property guarantee the Founders placed in the U.S. Constitution is no more. Legislation, like H.R. 4128, is needed to preserve the right to own private property, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues to acknowledge the crew of STS-114 in their heroic mission to the International Space Station this past summer. Their mission was watched with awe and appreciation by the entire world. I am proud that so many of my constituents work with NASA and especially the Human Space Flight program.

Great nations explore. America has taken up this banner and has committed itself to space exploration. We gain so much for our efforts. Space is of such a vital interest to our Nation from an economic and strategic vantage point. The Shuttle Discovery and her crew provided a vital support and logistics mission to the ISS. Their mission was an important part of our on-going exploration of space. I thank the crew and all of those who made the mission a success.

We have a wonderful new Vision for Space Exploration that includes a return to the Moon and eventually go onward to Mars. STS-114 played its own small, but critical part in that journey.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, for my colleagues this amendment specifically deals with the issue where you have a situation of a sexual assault and a victim is trying to determine the HIV status of the perpetrator.

Many States have taken action on this issue. But there are several States that have yet to do so. Why am I offering this? Well, we had a case in Alabama of a 41-year-old man, HIV positive, transmitting HIV to a 4-year-old girl that he had raped. A 35-year-old man in Iowa raped a 15-year-old girl and her 69-year-old grandmother. He was infected with

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.