Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1078.

Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 2003, I introduced an amendment to provide congressional support for the current U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) policy and practice against approving patent claims directed to human organisms, including human embryos and human fetuses. The House of Representatives approved the amendment without objection on July 22, 2003, as section 801 of the Fiscal Year 2004 Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations Bill. The amendment, now included in the Omnibus appropriations bill as section 634 of H.R. 2673, reads as follows: ``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this Act may be sued to issue patents on claims directed to or encompassing a human organism.''

The current Patent Office policy is that ``non-human organisms, including animals'' are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, but that human organisms, including human embryos and human fetuses, are not patentable. Therefore, any claim directed to a living organism must include the qualification ``non-human'' to avoid rejection. This amendment provides unequivocal congressional support for this current practice of the U.S. patent office.

House and Senate appropriators agreed on report language in the manager's statement on section 634. The statement reads: ``The conferees have included a provision prohibiting funds to process patents of human organisms. The conferees concur with the intent of this provision as expressed in the colloquy between the provision's sponsor in the House and the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Appropriations as occurred on July 22, 2003, with respect to any existing patents on stem cells.''

The manager's statement refers to my discussion with Chairman David Obey, when I explained that the amendment ``only affects patenting human organisms, human embryos, human fetuses or human beings.'' In response to Chairman Obey's inquiry, I pointed out that there are existing patents on stem cells, and that this amendment would not affect such patents.

Here I wish to elaborate further on the exact scope of this amendment. The amendment applies to patents on claims directed to or encompassing a human organism at any stage of development, including a human embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, or adult, regardless of whether the organism was produced by technological methods (including, but not limited to, in vitro fertilization, somatic cell nuclear transfer, or parthenogenesis). This amendment applies to patents on human organisms regardless of where the organism is located, including, but not limited to, a laboratory or a human, animal, or artificial uterus.

Some have questioned whether the term ``organism'' could include ``stem cells''. The answer is no. While stem cells can be found in human organisms (at every stage of development), they are not themselves human organisms. This was considered the ``key question'' by Senator Harkin at a December 2, 1998 hearing before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education regarding embryonic stem cell research. Dr. Harold Varmus, then director of the NIH testified ``that pulripotent stem cells are not organisms and are not embryos . . .'' Senator Harkin noted: ``I asked all of the scientists who were here before the question of whether or not these stem cells are organisms. And I believe the record will show they all said no, it is not an organism.'' Dr. Thomas Okarma of the Geron Corporation stated: ``My view is that these cells are clearly not organisms . . . in fact as we have said, are not the cellular equivalent of an embryo.'' Dr. Arthur Caplan agreed with this distinction, saying that a stem cell is ``absolutely not an organism.'' There was a unanimous consensus on this point at the 1998 hearing, among witnesses who disagreed on many other moral and policy issues related to stem cell research.

The term ``human organism'' includes an organism of the human species that incorporates one or more genes taken from a non-human organism. It includes a human-animal hybrid organism (such as a human-animal hybrid organism formed by fertilizing a non-human egg with human sperm or a human egg with non-human sperm, or by combining a comparable number of cells taken respectively from human and non-human embryos). However, it does not include a non-human organism incorporating one or more genes taken from a human organism (such as a transgenic plant or animal). In this respect, as well, my amendment simply provides congressional support for the Patent Office's current policy and practice.

This amendment should not be construed to affect claims directed to or encompassing subject matter other than human organisms, including but not limited to claims directed to or encompassing the following: cells, tissues, organs, or other bodily components that are not

themselves human organisms (including, but not limited to, stem cells, stem cell lines, genes, and living or synthetic organs); hormones, proteins or other substances produced by human organisms; methods for creating, modifying, or treating human organisms, including but not limited to methods for creating human embryos through in vitro fertilization, somatic cell nuclear transfer, or parthenogensis; drugs or devices (including prosthetic devices) which may be used in or on human organisms.

Jamed Rogan, undersecretary of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, has stated in a November 20, 2003, letter to Senate appropriators: ``The USPTO understands the Weldon Amendment to provide unequivocal congressional backing for the long-standing USPTO policy of refusing to grant any patent containing a claim that encompasses any member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development . . . including a human embryo or human fetus . . . The USPTO's policy of rejecting patent application claims that encompass human lifeforms, which the Weldon Amendment elevates to an unequivocal congressional prohibition,, applies regardless of the manner and mechanism used to bring a human organism into existence (e.g., somatic cell nuclear transfer, in vitro fertilization, parthenogenesis).'' Undersecretary Rogan concludes: ``Given that the scope of Representative Weldon's amendment . . . is full consistent with our policy, we support its enactment.''

The advance of biotechnology provides enormous potential for developing innovative science and therapies for a host of medical needs. However, it is inappropriate to turn nascent individuals of the human species into profitable commodities to be owned, licensed, marketed and sold.

Congressional action is needed not to change the Patent Office's current policy and practice, but precisely to uphold it against any threat of legal challenge. A previous Patent Office policy against patenting living organisms in general was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980, on the grounds that the policy has no explicit support from Congress. In an age when the irresponsible use of biotechnology threatens to make humans themselves into items of property, of manufacture and commerce, Congress cannot let this happen again in the case of human organisms.

I urge my colleagues to support this Omnibus in defense of this important provision against human patenting.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to a long-time member of my staff who is retiring this December. Barbara Reynolds has worked for me as my scheduler and executive assistant since I was elected in 1994. Barbara's career on Capitol Hill preceded mine by 13 years. This experience, along with her talent and willingness to accommodate the busy schedule of a Congressman, was invaluable.

Before coming to work on the Hill, Barbara had been a stay-at-home mom, taking care of her two children. She had never really given much thought to getting involved in the political world, but, in 1979, at the suggestion of her father-in-law, she handed a resume to a friend at the Republican Policy Committee and, in about a week, landed a job with then-Representative Carlos Moorehead from California. This, however, was not her only job at the time. Barbara often spent her weekends as a professional model--many say she looked just like Jackie Kennedy Onassis. Her modeling took her all over the world as well as provided her with many commercial advertising opportunities. As a result of this, some current House maintenance workers who were around at the time still refer to Barbara as ``Jackie'' when they see her in the halls.

In 1985 Barbara began working for then-Representative and eventual presidential candidate Jack Kemp. In addition to working in his personal office she also worked on his campaign in New Hampshire.

After working with Jack Kemp, Barbara moved on to work for my Florida colleague, Representative Cliff Stearns in 1988. Barbara spent six years working for Representative Stearns where she established her Florida roots.

In 1995 Barbara came to work for me and has worked in my Washington office since my first day in office. I am incredibly grateful for her loyalty to my staff and me. It will be nearly impossible to replace her uplifting spirit. Her presence in my office added a touch of class and style, which are sometimes hard to find in the world of politics.

I, along with her coworkers and others outside my office whose lives she has touched, will miss her presence on Capitol Hill. Barbara Reynolds's retirement is well earned. She plans to pursue her hobby of boating on the Chesapeake with her husband, Bob, as well as continue to be a loving mother and grandmother to her two grown children and to her grandchildren. We all wish her many blessings and much happiness in the years to come.

Thank you Barbara, for your service to my office, the people of Florida, and the many others with whom you have worked on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Speaker, this summer I introduced an amendment that provides congressional support for the current U.S. Patent and Trademark Office policy against patenting human organisms, including human embryos and fetuses. This amendment was approved by the House of Representatives with bipartisan support on July 22, 2003, as Sec. 801 of the Commerce/Justice/State appropriations bill.

On November 5th of this year, I submitted to the Congressional Record an analysis of my amendment that offers a more complete elaboration of what I stated on July 22nd, namely, that this amendment ``has no bearing on stem cell research or patenting genes, it only affects patenting human organisms, human embryos, human fetuses or human beings.''

However, some have continued to misrepresent my amendment by claiming it would also prohibit patent claims directed to methods to produce human organisms. Moreover, some incorrectly claim that my amendment would prohibit patents on claims directed to subject matter other than human organisms. This is simply untrue.

What I want to point out is that the U.S. Patent Office has already issued patents on genes, stem cells, animals with human genes, and a host of non-biologic products used by humans, but it has not issued patents on claims directed to human organisms, including human embryos and fetuses. My amendment would not affect the former, but would simply affirm the latter. This position is reaffirmed in the following U.S. Patent Office letter of November 20, 2003.

I submit to the Record a letter from James Rogan, Undersecretary and Director of the U.S. Patent office, that supports the enactment of my amendment because it ``is fully consistent with our policy.''

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,

November 20, 2003.

Hon. Ted Stevens,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to present

the Administration's position on the Weldon amendment adopted

by the House during consideration of H.R. 2799, the Commerce-

Justice-State Appropriations bill FY 2004, and the effect it

would have on the United States Patent and Trademark Office

(USPTO) policy on patenting living subject matter. For the

reasons outlined below, we view the Weldon amendment as fully

consistent with USPTO's policy on the non-patentability of

human life-forms.

The Weldon Amendment would prohibit the U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office from issuing any patent ``on claims directed

to or encompassing a human organism.'' The USPTO understands

the Weldon Amendment to provide unequivocal congressional

backing for the long-standing USPTO policy of refusing to

grant any patent containing a claim that encompasses any

member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of

development. It has long been USPTO practice to reject any

claim in a patent application that encompasses a human life-

form at any stage of development, including a human embryo or

human fetus; hence claims directed to living ``organisms''

are to be rejected unless they include the adjective

``nonhuman.''

The USPTO's policy of rejecting patent application claims

that encompass human lifeforms, which the Weldon Amendment

elevates to an unequivocal congressional prohibition, applies

regardless of the manner and mechanism used to bring a human

organism into existence (e.g., somatic cell nuclear transfer,

in vitro fertilization, parthenogenesis). If a patent

examiner determines that a claim is directed to a human life-

form at any stage of development, the claim is rejected as

non-statutory subject matter and will not be issued in a

patent as such.

As indicated in Representative Weldon's remarks in the

Congressional Record of November 5, 2003. the referenced

language precludes the patenting of human organisms,

including human embryos. He further indicated that the

amendment has ``exactly the same scope as the current USPTO

policy,'' which assures that any claim that can be broadly

construed as a human being, including a human embryo or

fetus, is not patentable subject matter. Therefore, our

understanding of the plain language of the Weldon Amendment

is fully consistent with the detailed statements that the

author of the amendment, Representative Weldon, has made in

the Congressional Record regarding the meaning and intent of

his amendment.

Given that the scope of Representative Weldon's amendment

does not alter the USPTO policy on the non-patentability of

human life-forms at any stage of development and is fully

consistent with our policy, we support its enactment.

With best personal regards, I remain

Sincerely,

James E. Rogan,

Under Secretary and Director.

Mr. Speaker, this summer I introduced an amendment that provides congressional support for the current federal policy against patenting humans. It was approved by the House of Representatives without objection on July 22, 2003 as Sec. 801 of the Commerce/Justice/State appropriations bill.

Since that time, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) has launched a lobbying campaign against the amendment, and has now enlisted the political aid of the broader ``Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research'' (CAMR), an umbrella organization of groups supporting human cloning for research purposes.

BIO and CAMR claim to support the current policy of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) against patenting human beings. However, they oppose this amendment, saying it would have a far broader scope-- potentially prohibiting patents on stem cell lines, procedures for creating human embryos, prosthetic devices, and in short almost any drug or product that might be used in or for human beings.

The absurdity of these claims is apparent when one compares the language of the amendment with the language of the current USPTO policy that these groups claim to support.

The House-approved amendment reads:

``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this Act may be used to issue patents on claims directed to or encompassing a human organism.''

The current USPTO policy is set forth in two internal documents:

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ``Notice: Animals--Patentability,'' 1077 Official Gazette U.S. Pat. and Trademark Off. 8 (April 21, 1987):

``The Patent and Trademark Office now considers non-naturally occurring non-human multicellular living organisms, including animals, to be patentable subject matter within the scope of 35 U.S.C. 101. . . . A claim directed to or including within its scope a human being will not be considered patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. The grant of a limited, but exclusive property right in a human being is prohibited by the Constitution. Accordingly, it is suggested that any claim directed to a non-plant multicellular organism which would include a human being within its scope include the limitation `non- human' to avoid this ground of rejection.''

(This notice responded to the Supreme Court's 1980 decision in Chakrabarty concluding that a modified ``microorganism,'' a bacterium, could be patented, and a subsequent decision by the USPTO's own Board of Appeals in Ex parte Allen that a multicellular organism such as a modified oyster is therefore patentable as well. The USPTO sought to ensure that these policy conclusions would not be misconstrued as allowing a patent on a human organism.)

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (Revised February 2003), Sec. 2105: ``Patentable Subject Matter--Living Subject Matter'':

``If the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention as a whole encompasses a human being, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 must be made indicating that the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.''

In other words, the USPTO clearly distinguishes between organisms that are nonhuman and therefore are patentable and those organisms that are human and therefore not patentable subject matter.

As a USPTO official testified recently to the President's Council on Bioethics:

``When a patent claim includes or covers a human being, the USPTO rejects the claim on the grounds that it is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When examining a patent application, a patent examiner must construe the claim presented as broadly as is reasonable in light of the application's specification. If the examiner determines that a claim is directed to a human being at any stage of development as a product, the examiner rejects the claims on the grounds that it includes non-statutory subject matter and provides the applicant with an explanation. The examiner will typically advise the applicant that a claim amendment adding the qualifier, non-human, is needed, pursuant to the instructions of MPEP 2105. The MPEP does not expressly address claims directed to a human embryo. In practice, examiners treat such claims as directed to a human being and reject the claims as directed to non-statutory subject matter.'' (Testimony of Karen Hauda on behalf of USPTO to the President's Council on Bioethics, June 20, 2002, http:/ /bioethicsprint.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jun02/june2I session5.html)

Current USTPO policy, then, is that any claim that can reasonably be interpreted as ``directed to'' or ``encompassing'' a human being, and any claim reaching beyond ``nonhuman'' organisms to cover human organisms (including human embryos), must be rejected. My amendment simply restates this policy, providing congressional support so that federal courts will not invalidate the USPTO policy as going beyond the policy of Congress (as they invalidated the earlier USPTO policy against patenting living organisms in general).

Literally the only difference between my amendment and some of these USPTO documents is that the amendment uses the term ``human organism,'' while the USPTO usually speaks of the non-patentability of (anything that can be broadly construed as) a ``human being.'' But ``human organism'' is more politically neutral and more precise, having a long history of clear interpretation in federal law.

Since 1996, Congress has annually approved a rider to the Labor/HHS appropriations bill that prohibits federal funding of research in which human embryos are created or destroyed--and this rider defines a human embryo as a ``human organism'' not already protected by older federal regulations on fetal research. In December 1998 testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor/HHS/Education, a wide array of expert witnesses--including NIH Director Harold Varmus and the head of a leading company in BIO--testified that this rider does not forbid funding research on embryonic stem cells, because a human embryo is an ``organism'' but a stem cell clearly is not (see S. Hrg. 105-939, December 2, 1998). That same conclusion was later reached by HHS general counsel Harriet Rabb, in arguing that the Clinton administration's guidelines on stem cell research were in accord with statutory law; this same legal opinion was accepted by the Bush administration when it issued its more limited guidelines for funding stem cell research (Legal memorandum of HHS general counsel Harriet S. Rabb, ``Federal Funding for Research Involving Human Pluripotent Stem Cells,'' January 15, 1999). To argue now that a ban on patenting ``human organisms'' somehow bans patenting of stem cells or stem cell lines would run counter to five years of legal history, and would undermine the legal validity of any federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

BIO also claims that the amendment raises new and difficult questions about ``mixing'' animal and human species. What about an animal that is modified to include a few human genes so it can produce a human protein or antibody? What about a human/animal ``chimera'' (an embryo that is half human, half animal)? The fact is, these questions are not new. The USPTO has already granted patents on the former (see U.S. patent nos. 5,625,126 and 5,602,306). It has also thus far rejected patents on the latter, the half-human embryo (see Biotechnology Law Report, July- August 1998, p. 256), because the latter can broadly but reasonably be construed as a human organism. The Weldon amendment does nothing to change this, but leaves the USPTO free to address new or borderline issues on the same case-by-case basis as it already does.

In short, my amendment has exactly the same scope as the current USPTO policy, and cannot be charged with the radical expansions of policy that BIO and its allies claim. In reality, BIO opposes this amendment because it opposes the current USPTO policy as well, and has a better chance of nullifying this policy in court (or having courts reinterpret it into uselessness) if it lacks explicit support in statutory law.

This goal is apparent from BIO's own ``fact sheet'' opposing the amendment (see www.bio.org/ip/cloningfactsheet.asp). There BIO argues that human beings should be patentable, if they arise from anything other than ``conventional reproduction'' or have any ``physical characteristics resulting from human intervention.'' In other words, humans should be seen as ``inventions'' and thus be patentable on exactly the same grounds as animals are now.

The logic of this argument reaches beyond the human embryo, because an embryo who resulted from reproductive technology or received any physical or genetic modification presumably remains just as invented throughout his or her existence, no matter what stage of development he or she reaches.

BIO's stated support for reducing members of the human species to patentable commodities makes the passage of my amendment more urgently necessary than ever.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion. The Obey motion to instruct insists on the highest funding levels possible for implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. The motion to instruct says that unlimited funding is the answer. But higher funding is not an end in itself. In fact, it often represents a failure of government.

What kind of responsibility, what kind of governance, is provided by simply spending more money? None. Instead, we have a system already in place to determine educational spending that provides accountability and results. It consists of local school boards and parents. It consists of State initiatives, like charter schools and vouchers, to enhance academic choice and school accountability.

The President's No Child Left Behind initiative attempts to build accountability and results into what States are doing. When we have no other alternative but to increase funding levels, we say increased funding is all we can do and the system is broken.

If higher funding levels were the answer, the District of Columbia would have some of the highest academic scores in the Nation. But, unfortunately, the opposite is true. Higher funding does not guarantee results. The District of Columbia's school system spends more per student than Fairfax County, just across the river. The academic performance could not be more different.

The answer, I believe, is local control and decision making. In Brevard County, Florida, where I live, a local sales tax initiative is being considered by local officials to support increased educational funding. The same thing is going on in Fairfax County as well. This is what should be done; local control, the decisions of local voters.

I believe the Federal Government needs to get out of the way of local action. We are not local school boards, and we should not pretend to be them either. Let us allow greater discretion at the local school board level and local government level, and let us let them set the majority of the policies. Oppose the Obey motion.

Mr. Speaker, Terry Schiavo had her feeding tubes removed last Wednesday, and she may needlessly die. Last night, I spoke with Governor Jeb Bush about Terry, and he assured me that he and the Florida legislature are moving expeditiously to give him the powers to intervene to save her life and fulfill the wishes of Terry's parents. Terry's parents are in a last-minute battle to save her.

Governor Bush and the Florida legislature are taking the necessary steps. Three years ago, the circuit court ordered Terry's feeding tubes to be withdrawn; and despite the objections of Terry's parents and request to take custody and care for her, all court cases have failed. Terry is not unconscious. Terry is not on life support. She is not dying of an underlying disease, and she is responsive to human interaction.

This is a grave injustice. Yesterday, Governor Bush called for a special session to pass a moratorium on all dehydration cases in Florida. The Florida House passed this bill with Governor Bush's support, and the Florida senate will take it up today. Support the legislature and support Governor Bush in this effort to save this young lady's life.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the war on terror and the President's $87 billion supplemental request in funding this war.

Mr. Chairman, while the previous administration chose to often treatment the acts of terrorism foisted against the American people as mere criminal proceedings, President Bush has taken strong action in fully addressing these acts for what they are. They are acts of war against the American Nation, not simply a crime, but acts of terror which demand full and swift and final military action.

It is unfortunate that the $20 billion in this budget request appropriated for rebuilding Iraq has been shamelessly and unnecessarily politicized by those seeking political gain at the expense of true and lasting peace. The stability of Iraq is directly related to America's long-term security interests. If we fail to establish a safe and secure Iraq, then we allow Iraq to possibly return to a country that serves the purposes of terror, and we enable it to become an incubator for future terrorist acts.

Some may wonder why U.S. taxpayers should be asked to pay for water projects, health care facilities, and public schools. We have heard repeatedly from commanders in the field that this type of funding is critical if we are going to be able to achieve stability in this region. We must not allow Iraq to revert to becoming a homeland for terrorists.

Another important point is the simple fact that we have spent over $14 billion over the last 10 years containing Iraq. It is not a choice of spending the money or not spending the money; it is a choice of whether we do the right thing or the wrong thing here.

Not 2 years ago, a terrorist group inflicted terrible damage on the American people through the acts of 9-11. This was a huge humanitarian tragedy, but as well a $2 trillion impact on our economy. This $87 billion funding request is dwarfed by the negative economic impact of the toll of 9-11.

Some may argue that the $20 billion should be loaned to Iraq. Sending this money as a loan rather than as a grant, I feel very strongly, would be very shortsighted. Did we not learn anything from World War I? The Treaty of Versailles saddled Germany with a significant debt, eventually setting the stage for the rise of an authoritarian regime under Adolf Hitler and ultimately ushering in World War II. Conversely, at the end of World War II, America's leaders established the Marshall Plan, a plan that ushered in decades of economic prosperity and peace for the region of Europe.

Ambassador Bremer testified on September 22 that Iraq has almost $200 billion in debt and reparations hanging over its head right now. This idea of saddling them with additional debt, I think, is wrong and very misguided; and we should support the President's request and support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Conference Report. For 9 years, I have been coming to this floor and speaking out against this barbaric procedure, so it is with great joy that I rise today in support of this bill knowing that we finally have a President who stands ready to sign this bill into law.

I first learned of this procedure 10 years ago, in 1993, when I was still practicing medicine. After a long day of seeing patients in my office, I opened the American Medical News and saw this procedure described. I was shocked, not only by its flagrant violation of the sanctity of human life, but its brutality. How could such an awful procedure be legal in this country? Now 10 years later, after years of House and Senate votes and vetoes by former President Clinton, we will finally see a ban on partial birth abortion signed into law.

The procedure is simply abhorrent. The mother is subjected to 3 days of slow inducement. Then the child's head is left in the mother's womb until the abortionist kills the child by puncturing the back of the child's neck. If the baby's head were 3 inches further out of the birth canal, this practice would be called murder.

Critics of a partial-birth abortion ban have asserted that the ban could endanger the life and/or health of the mother, but such is not the case. Even the American Medical Association has said that this procedure is not good medicine and is not medically indicated in any situation.

This procedure is clearly barbaric. It is unneccesary under any circumstance, and the legality of the procedure is an affront to the founding principles of this Nation. I remind my colleagues that we have come this far, we cannot stop short of doing what's right. Let's send this bill to President Bush's desk with the message that these lives are worth saving.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be brief because I know there are several people who have been to Iraq.

I believe my physician colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), may get up in a little while and talk about the medical situation over there, which was really abominable under Saddam Hussein.

I just want to state that I support the President's request to make this grant to Iraq. It is the right thing to do from a military strategy, it is the right thing to do from a political strategy and I am very, very pleased that this is going to be a bipartisan special order.

I just want to make one comment. I was so glad that you put this poster up here, because this $100 billion that we spent rebuilding Europe after World War II was somewhat in our own interests in that Europe was in such disarray that Communist forces were beginning to take over.

And those funds that were spent helped stabilize Europe, helped the democracies in Europe to emerge, and we essentially got a tremendous dividend from this investment in that there was a tremendous decade of peace and free trade, and ultimately in the end our economy benefitted from that.

And the situation here today is very similar. We have a unique opportunity to create a Western, U.S.-friendly, democratic beachhead in the middle of what has been a very problematic area in the Middle East that could have tremendous positive implications in decades and decades to come. And if we fail, the results could be absolutely horrible, not only in terms of dollars spent but as well in human lives. So I think the President's approach is right. All the military leaders say that this is desperately needed. All of the Members, and they are going to be speaking

more tonight like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), say it is very much needed. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that at the House Republican conference last week, and it is a point that I do not think has been emphasized enough. If we fail, what is likely to happen? One of the scenarios is that another brutal, vicious, murderous dictatorship regime could come back. The worst case scenario, of course, is that Saddam himself could crawl out from under a rock and regain the reins of power. And we all know what he did in Basra after the first Gulf War. He executed 10,000 people. I think the bloodshed this time around would be much worse. So we really need to follow through on this, and we really need to make sure it is a success.

I think the President's proposal is very much the right thing to do, and I think all of us in the House and in the Senate should be backing him. This is money, I believe, that will be very well-spent in the long-term. This war on terror, I believe very strongly, it could end up resembling the Cold War. It may take decades or generations, and this is a very critical moment for us. If we succeed, it could have huge positive implications for the future. If we fail, it could be disastrous. And I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority whip for recognizing me, and it is a real pleasure for me to be able to rise and speak in support of the underlying bill and against the substitute.

One of the things that I have learned over and over again as I traveled around my congressional district, and indeed throughout the State of Florida and within the United States, and that is that some of the greatest work helping the needy and the unfortunate in our Nation, and indeed throughout the history of our Nation, has always been performed by a whole host of different charitable groups, the most significant of which, of course, is religious groups, but many nonreligious groups or groups with very loose religious affiliations.

I think one of the most important provisions in our tax law, which has been the ability to tax deduct charitable donations, has encouraged a lot of people. It has encouraged me to give and to give generously, and I think it has helped strengthen our Nation, make our Nation a better place and extending one of the provisions of this bill, and that is one of the main things I rise and speak in support of, extending that provision to nonitemizers I think is something actually long overdue.

Regarding the issue that is under debate in the substitute regarding the Social Services Block Grant, while indeed this may be a very worthwhile issue, as I understand it we are increasing the funding in this in the underlying appropriation and to tack on an additional amount of this magnitude I think is, at this time, unnecessary and inappropriate, and therefore, I would strongly encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the substitute and vote yes on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to address the tragic situation in the Middle East and the failed peace process. It is obvious to all that the continued dispatching of these so-called suicide or homicide bombers into civilian Israeli targets like buses and restaurants is intended to prevent any peaceful resolution of the Palestinian problem.

For any peace process to work, both parties involved must want peace. The Palestinian Authority and Mr. Arafat have demonstrated that they do not want to end and they are unwilling and incapable of preventing this ongoing violence against Israeli civilians.

The repeated call by Mr. Arafat for martyrs by the millions, reiterated by him again last week, should be a stark reminder to us all that we cannot work with him or the beliefs he represents. There can be no real peace when these are the sentiments of this man's heart. Let us not delude ourselves.

Ariel Sharon's primary responsibility, and the primary responsibility of the Israeli government, above and beyond everything else is to maintain the safety and security of its people. While the opinions of European ministers, the U.S. Government and our State Department are important, they are not more important than the lives of women and children.

Now is the time to acknowledge that Oslo has been a terrible failure and the road map is not working. Hundreds of Israelis are dead and buried as a testimony to this fact. Many more are left to face a lifetime of painful disability.

I feel strongly that the Israeli government should be supported in doing whatever it takes to protect its people. If this includes expelling Arafat so be it. If it includes completing the fence, so be it. Whatever is necessary to defend itself and protect its people.

Our State Department was recently quoted as saying that expelling Arafat will not be helpful. I strongly disagree. It may prove to be very helpful. It might end these attacks on Israeli civilians, and what is more, it could be very helpful to the Palestinians themselves.

Since Arafat's return in 1993, the Palestinian economy has shrunk by 70 percent, while at the same time the Israeli economy has doubled. There is widespread corruption and no freedom of speech in the Palestinian-controlled territories. Any Palestinian who openly criticizes Arafat or the Authority's policy is killed. Removing this man and the evil and corrupt regime around him could be the best thing for the peace process.

I know I do not stand alone in these sentiments and that a majority of this House, the Senate and the American

people will support Israel in this. Certainly, the American people expect our leaders to do whatever it takes to protect our people.

Witness what is happening today. In response to the attacks of 9/11, we have waged all-out war, first attacking Afghanistan, then Iraq. Did America rise up and say we need to negotiate with bin Laden and develop a peace process? No.

The American people understand that there is no negotiating with blood-thirsty murderers. The only road to peace and safety is the obliteration of al Qaeda and the regimes that aid it. President Bush said: ``Every Nation has a choice to make. In this conflict there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.''

I could not agree with the President more. If this is the standard for America, why should it not be the same for another country? To deny Israel the right to do what it takes to defend itself is to deny Israel the right to exist and to turn our back on an ally and over 50 years of U.S. policy.

We must allow Israel to pursue the same goals for its people that we want for ourselves, the right to live in freedom peace and prosperity. We must stop defending and supporting this brutal, dysfunctional Palestinian Authority and its leader Arafat.

I agree with all those who say we may never end this war on terror until a solution to the Palestinian problem is found. However, negotiating with vicious murderers who seek the destruction of Israel is no solution. It only worsens the problem.

Let us give Ariel Sharon and the Israeli government the freedom to do what is right, to defend and protect their people.

Mr. Chairman, since the early 1960s, U.S. policy towards Cuba has consisted largely of isolating the island nation through comprehensive economic sanctions. In addition, these sanctions were made stronger with the 1992 congressional approval of the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA). I feel strongly that it has never been in our nation's best interest to recognize countries in our hemisphere that rebel against the ideas and freedoms we hold so dear. Some people feel that it is time to lift these sanctions.

I believe it is important to uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, human rights and liberty for which our Founding Fathers fought so hard. All peoples--including Cubans--have the right to enjoy these basic, inalienable rights as well. It is my understanding that once again, recently, the Cuban dictatorship took aggressive action to stifle the efforts of freedom-loving Cubans. Today is not the day to reward this repressive behavior. I urge my colleagues to reject the Flake-Delahunt-Davis Amendment.

Today's proposed amendments, which would open the floodgates of American dollars to the Castro dictatorship, would only prolong and strengthen the dictator's grip on the people of Cuba. To allow the American travel industry to engage Castro would send the worst of all messages to the freedom-seeking Cuban dissidents who rely on the United States not to give into this regime.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for his hard work in support of the city, and I particularly want to commend him for caring. I have enjoyed working with him over the past year, and I have been able to clearly discern that he is very interested in improving the city. It is America's city. I think we all have a vested interest in making sure that we make Washington, D.C. a better, healthier place to live, better, healthier place to educate their kids.

I want to address the school choice issue that we are going to be debating in more detail later, just to make one very, very important point. I really want to commend the chairman and, as well, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for their hard work. One of the things that has always bothered me is that wealthy people in America have school choice, but poor people do not. Many of those families in poor neighborhoods cannot afford a private option. Unfortunately, many of those types of situations are in the District of Columbia.

I have wanted for years to be able to seriously look at this issue, go into some of the poor neighborhoods in America, give the parents the option. And really when we have a marketplace, when parents have an option, I think quality improves. We know that in the consumer sector with consumer goods, it is good to have companies competing with each other. I think the reason higher education in America is the best in the world, our colleges and universities, is because there is a real marketplace. We can send our kids to any college. And the hope with the public schools and school choice is that the public schools will rise with the other schools when they have to compete for students, but we need to get good data.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) have crafted some very good language that will help us look at this issue. I think it is very, very appropriate, and I want to address one very important thing. We are going to hear this over and over again. This pilot, this $10 million study that we are trying to do, is going to take money away from public schools, that it is going to take money away from public education.

The budget for the District of Columbia is $1.1 billion to educate their kids, and this money is a plus-up. If this amendment is defeated, they are not going to get the extra money. The real debate is not taking money away from public schools. I have been hearing that on the radio. We are not taking money away from public schools. We are putting an extra, actually from the Labor-HHS allotment, we are taking money from that committee and moving it over here so we can once and for all try to study this issue.

Despite what I think are very good intentions, and if school choice is so bad, like so many people on the left keep claiming, let us discover that.

I think the opposition to this issue has nothing to do with the arguments being put forward. It is about power and who controls where your kids are going to school. If this study shows that it works, if parents like it better, academic performance improves, these are all of the parameters the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) are going to be following, along with the Secretary of Education is going to be following. If it actually shows that it works and it is good for the District of Columbia, it is good for the kids, it is going to erode the power of one of the most powerful groups in this country, and that is the teachers union, and that is the opposition to this.

To say this is going to move money from public education, if this gets killed, you do not get the money. That is really what it boils down to. We need to study this issue because kids are failing and they are failing unnecessarily and we need to do more for them.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I commend him for producing what I think is a fair and balanced bill.

I know every area of the Nation is experiencing significant problems with its transportation needs and that we would all like to see more funds for transportation purposes. Wrestling with the realities that we have with this recession and the war on terror, I think the chairman needs to be very seriously commended.

I want to particularly single out and thank him for including some funding for the Pineda Extension. This project is very, very important for the proper evacuation in the event of hurricanes for many of our coastal communities in the congressional district that I represent.

As we all can remember, Hurricane Floyd when it threatened the coast of Florida, the east coast of Florida, precipitated one of the largest, if not the largest, human evacuations in history where literally millions of people had to migrate off the coast of Florida and move inland. And one of the things that was recognized in that challenge was that the State did not have enough east-west access corridors.

This important addition to the bill will help us in the State of Florida address that need in a very, very critical area. I again want to thank the chairman.