Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, technology proceeds at a rapid rate, bringing great benefits to humankind from treatments of disease to greater wealth and greater knowledge of our world. However, sometimes technology can be used to undermine what is meant to be human, including the exploitation of human nature for the purpose of financial gain.

Several weeks ago, at a meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Madrid, Spain, it was reported that scientists had created the first male-female hybrid human embryos. The researchers transplanted cells from male embryos into female embryos and allowed them to grow for 6 days. This research was universally condemned as unnecessary and unethical.

Reuters reported that one member of the European Society condemned this research, saying there are very good reasons why this type of research is generally rejected by the international research community. Furthermore, the scientists who created these she-male embryos reportedly want to patent this research.

It is important that we, as a civilized society, draw the line where some rogue scientists fail to exercise restraint. Just because something can be done does not mean that it should be done. A patent on such human organisms would last for 20 years. We should not allow such researchers to gain financially by granting them an exclusive right to practice such ghoulish research.

Long-standing American patent and trademark policy states that human beings at any stage of development are not patentable, subject to matters under 35 U.S.C. section 101. Though current policy would not issue patents on human embryos, Congress has remained silent on this subject. Though this amendment would not actually ban this practice, it is about time that Congress should simply reaffirm current U.S. patent policy and ensure there is not financial gain or ownership of human beings by those who engage in these activities.

This amendment simply mirrors the current patent policy concerning patenting humans. The Patent Office has, since 1980, issued hundreds of patents on living subject matter, from microorganisms to nonhuman animals. It does not issue patents on human beings nor should it. Congress should reaffirm this policy, and this amendment simply accomplishes this by restricting funds for issuing patents on human embryos, human organisms.

Congress should speak out, and I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, that this has no bearing on stem cell research or patenting genes, it only affects patenting human organisms, human embryos, human fetuses or human beings.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would respond that, no, it would not. And I recognize that there are many institutions, particularly in Wisconsin, that have extensive patents on human genes, human stem cells. This would not affect any of those current existing patents.

The Patent Office policy is not to issue these patents, and there never has been one. The Congress has been silent on this issue. I am trying to put us on record that we support the Patent Office in this position that human life in any form should not be patentable.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the following be placed in the Record: During rollcall vote 367, the Hostettler amendment to H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, my ``aye'' vote, in favor of the amendment, was not recorded. I would ask that the permanent record reflect my support for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote Nos. 392 and 391. I would ask that the Record reflect that had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 392 (Udall amendment) and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 391 (Andrews amendment).

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hefley

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the full committee chairman for bringing this bill to the floor. This bill funds a lot of critical health investments, but being a Republican, I must say that in many past years I have been very concerned about this bill. It would often have significant increased levels of funding well above and beyond the inflationary level. We would have inflation going at 2 and 3 percent, and in some of these previous Labor-HHS appropriations bills, there have been 10-15 percent funding increases.

I was particularly concerned about this issue this year. We have had a significant decline in revenue into the Federal Treasury, mainly due to the recession. We have had significant expenses associated with the war on terror, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I think the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations should be commended. He has brought a bill to the floor that is a total of $138 billion, $46 million over the budget request, $3.6 billion over comparable levels of last year.

I think it funds education, I think, adequately under the circumstances that we are in. And I must reiterate what the chairman has already said: We have doubled education spending over the last 8 years. Some of the other programs that I am particularly interested in, it provides the third year of the President's initiative to expand health services through community health centers. I have seen these programs in action firsthand. I think they are a very effective use of health care dollars, Federal tax dollars, in providing needed health care to some of the poorest in our country.

And the chairman just made some very good points. We are the majority. We have to be the responsible adults here. If we look at the Democratic record when they were in the majority, they frequently underfunded below the authorization levels in a lot of these programs. For example, the Democratic past Labor-HHS bill back in I believe it was 1994, that year increased education spending by only 2 percent. The chairman pointed out a reduction of $3 billion in 1995.

The issue here is it is easy to pass an authorization bill, but to find the dollars to fund it is always a challenge, and I think the chairman has done really an outstanding job in meeting that requirement.

Now, regarding the business about the tax cuts, if we did not cut taxes, supposedly we would have more money for this bill. Well, let us look at what those tax cuts are doing. Some of the tax cuts, they are going to the child credit. These are families that are going to get more money to pay for the cost of raising their kids. It is money that is going to go right back into the economy.

Then, of course, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) laid this case out very, very nicely. When we cut the rates, the majority of job growth in this country has been in the small business sector. Most small businesses pay at the personal level, and most of those small businesses, if you leave more money with them, if you tax them less, they are going to leave it in the business, and it will be easier for them to create jobs. Today we had another posting of unemployment up. I think most Americans want to see, more than funding for all of these various Federal programs going up much higher than the inflation level, would rather see people getting a job.

I stand by our tax cut package. I think it was the right thing to do. It was badly needed to get this economy going. Once we get this economy going, we are going to have more money into the Federal Treasury to better enable us in the years ahead to meet the requirements of all these various programs that the Federal Government is involved in funding.

I would encourage my colleagues, conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, to support this bill. I think this is a very, very good bill in the context of where we are today. We have a recession. We have a war on terror going on. We have problems in Iraq still. Yet we have a fairly good bill that increases funding for most of these critical needs areas slightly. I think it is a very responsible, mature, adult bill. I again commend the chairman.

Madam Speaker, one of the issues about which my constituents most frequently contact me is the high cost of health insurance and the need for affordable insurance coverage. We all know health insurance premiums are increasing significantly each year. As such, many small businesses are unable to afford health insurance for their employees. Furthermore, for those who can afford insurance for their employees, rising costs make U.S. products more expensive, harming U.S. competitiveness and costing American jobs.

Just last month I received a letter in my office written by a small business owner in Palm Bay, Florida. In it he wrote, ``As an independent businessman, I can only afford the most basic of health insurance policies for myself, of which premiums have gone up over 100 percent in the past two years, I might add. I sacrifice greatly to insure myself. But it is getting to the point I may not be able to afford health insurance myself.'' I know he is not alone. We have all heard similar stories.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, but the financial viability of many small businesses is being hurt by the escalating costs of health insurance. This hurts job creation and economic growth. The U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy found that administrative expenses for small health plans make up about 35 percent of total costs. This is not good for small business owners, their employees, or the American economy. Congress must address this problem, which is why I support H.R. 660, the Small Business Health Fairness Act.

By passing H.R. 660 Congress will be leveling the playing field between small businesses, the self-employed and large corporations. This allows organizations of individuals and businesses to enter into an Association Health Plan (AHP). Under an AHP, small businesses can pool their resources and purchase health care similar to the way large corporations do. They can get better bargaining power in terms of costs and benefits for their employees. It gives workers, who do not have health insurance today, the opportunity to obtain health insurance coverage.

Whether it is a small business, a trade association, a farm bureau, or a local community organization that is seeking to purchase more affordable health insurance, this legislation will help them.

It is generally accepted that there are 41 million people in America without health insurance at any given time. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a more accurate estimate of the number of people who were uninsured for all of an entire year is 21 million to 31 million. Regardless, almost 60 percent of those individuals are employed by a small business. As health care costs increase, fewer and fewer employers and working families will be able to afford coverage, and more Americans will be without adequate health insurance. Those who work for small businesses should have the same type of access to quality health insurance that their counterparts in large corporations already enjoy.

I urge Congress to pass H.R. 660. Congress must pass this bipartisan legislation to give much needed relief to American small businesses, farmers, and hard working families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill. I am pleased that the House approved my bill last year to accomplish this very same goal. Unfortunately, we were unable to garner the votes in the Senate to enact this into law.

The Death Tax Needs to Die. Along with the marriage penalty, the death tax is perhaps the most disgraceful tax levied by the Federal Government and it should be repealed. The death tax is double taxation. Small business owners and family farmers pay taxes throughout their lifetime, then at the time of death they are assessed another tax on the value of the property on which they have already paid taxes.

Critics claim that we can't afford to eliminate the death tax. They are wrong. We can't afford not to permanently repeal the death tax. Family businesses spend nearly $14.2 billion a year on estate planning and insurance costs largely to avoid the death tax. Studies indicate the cost of compliance with the death tax equals the amount of death taxes received. Thus, the ``real'' cost of the death tax to business is double the tax burden.

During the debate last year on my bill to permanently repeal the death tax, I asked a constituent of mine. Danny Sexton of Kissimmee, FL and owner of Kissimmee Florist, to come to Washington and share his ``death tax'' experience.

Mr. Sexton, who comes from a family of florists, inherited his uncle's flower shop and was faced with paying almost $160,000 in estate taxes. This forced him to have to liquidate all of the assets, lay off staff, but salaries, and take out a loan just to pay the death tax. He also had to establish a line of credit just to keep the operation running.

Danny Sexton is the face of the death tax. The death tax isn't a tax for the rich, it is a tax that hurts family owned businesses--family owned businesses that are the back-bone of this great Nation. The folks that worked in Danny's florist were not rich, but they lost their jobs because of the death tax.

According to the National Federation of Independent Business more than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation and 87 percent of family businesses do not make it to the third generation. Sixty percent of small business owners report that they would create new jobs over the coming year if death taxes were eliminated.

For the sake of future generations, Congress must take responsibility, do the right thing, and permanently repeal the estate tax. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the residents of Palm Bay, Florida Since 1949 the National Civic League has recognized great American cities from across the Nation. Palm Bay is among the 30 finalists that will compete for the title of ``All American City.''

An All American City is a city that has addressed community issues through the strong collaborative efforts of its citizens. It is no surprise to me that Palm Bay, my hometown for many years, has been selected as a finalist for this honor.

During the 1980s, Palm Bay's population more than tripled from just 18,560 to 62,540. Then in the early '90s the General Development Corporation declared bankruptcy. Although this could have had a stagnating effect on city development, Palm Bay's grassroots rose to the occasion. Deteriorating infrastructure and poorly groomed public areas have been replaced by better roads, new parks and recreation areas, a community pool, the renewal of the U.S. 1 corridor and the continued efforts of ``Keep Brevard Beautiful'' and the Marine Resources Council.

The All American City competition specifically seeks cities in which key civic projects are community and citizen driven. Palm Bay certainly has an abundance of community driven projects and organizations. These include the Volunteer Citizen Observer Program started in 1995 and the more than 100 Palm Bay Citizens who dedicate their time who assist the Palm Bay police force as volunteers.

Next week nearly 100 residents of Florida's 15th district will travel here to Washington, DC to compete for the 54th Annual ``All American City'' Award. City employees, elected officials, activists, pastors, school children and other Palm Bay citizens will have an opportunity to share just a small piece of Palm Bay with the National Civic League. I commend the city and its citizens for all of the hard work that has made Palm Bay the wonderful place that it is today. I wish these delegates the best as they represent all of the great Floridians living in Palm Bay.

Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I find the practice of partial birth abortion extremely disturbing. It is an agonizing experience for the mother, a slow painful death for the child and is utterly unnecessary. Supporters of Partial Birth Abortions will say that these procedures are necessary for the mother, that it may be the safest procedure for some women in emergency situations. I ask them to consider the facts of the procedure. It is important to understand the procedure that we are banning in this bill.

The woman is subjected to three days of slow dilation of the cervix. The feet, body and arms of the baby are delivered. Only the head is not delivered. Then the abortionist kills the child by puncturing the back of the child's neck and removing his/her brain. If the baby's head were three inches further out of the birth canal, this practice would be recognized as murder under our court system.

The procedure is not in the best interest of women and even the American Medical Association has said that the procedure is ``not good medicine.'' In fact, it presents a number of serious risks to mothers. No woman and no child should be subjected to this gruesome and unnecessary procedure. In fact, this procedure is no troubling that scores of pro-choice Members of Congress have joined us in voting to ban this procedure.

Opponents of this bill are attempting to add an exemption for the mother's ``health.'' I know and they know that the courts have defined the term ``health'' to include a definition of mental health so broad as to make any ban virtually meaningless.

President Bush has said that he would sign a bill banning this practice. My hope is that the 108th Congress will give the President the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 for him to do just that. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing today and vote for this ban.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues of the devastating effect of sexual activity on our Nation's youth.

Just today the Heritage Foundation released a new report entitled ``Sexually Active Teenagers Are More Likely to Be Depressed And to Attempt Suicide.'' In this study, Robert Rector, Kirk Johnson, and Lauren Noyes outlined the psychological and emotional aspects associated with teenage sexual activity.

The data shows that there is a real correlation between teen sexual activity and depression and even between sexual activity and suicide in the ages of 14 through 17. Sexually active teenage girls are three times more likely to be depressed than their classmates who are abstinent. Sexually active boys in their teens are more than twice as likely to be depressed. Furthermore, 14 percent of sexually active teenage girls report having attempted suicide, a three-fold increase over their peers who are abstinent.

This report demonstrates the value of abstinence education.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.J. Res. 4, the desecration of the flag resolution.

Our Nation's flag is a sacred symbol of our country's liberties that so many men and women in uniform have fought and died to defend. As the symbol of that liberty, the flag deserves our greatest respect. To desecrate the flag raised by soldiers at Iwo Jima, astronauts on the Moon, and rescue workers at the World Trade Center is an affront to the very values it represents. Even in the past week, young Americans have laid down their lives in Iraq to protect the freedom and liberty that we enjoy here at home.

It is disgraceful that people would desecrate, even burn, the flag that all of our Nation's veterans have fought so valiantly to defend.

Even as American soldiers prepared for war in Iraq, there were reports of protesters defacing flags, even flags being displayed in a memorial to the victims of September 11, 2001. These acts are disgraceful. They are repugnant, and they should not happen in this great Nation.

The flag deserves and demands our respect. The physical desecration of the flag is not free speech nor should it be protected under the first amendment. The amendment before us will clarify that desecration of the flag does not fall under the first amendment and will prevent the courts from making such an assertion.

I urge my colleagues to support the underlying resolution. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their work on this important issue.

The bill that we will approve today emphasizes the model of Uganda. Uganda has helped people avoid exposure and infection to HIV/AIDS. They have saved lives. The world can take a lesson from Uganda, including the United States.

Uganda understood as a developing country working to build its way back from tyranny and exploitation it had to act to save itself. It had little money, no expertise, few resources. But Uganda had faith. Uganda had faith in God and in its people to save themselves.

President Museveni asked his people to change their behavior in order to stay alive. That is not a message that is dependent on cultural interpretation. It does not require technical or scientific understanding. It is a message that gave hope and health to the general population of Uganda; and it has worked and continues to work in Uganda, as well as Zambia, Jamaica and Namibia.

The bill that is before us is landmark legislation because it sets a course for what works in saving people's lives from the certain death of HIV/AIDS. It emphasizes treatment through antiretroviral therapy, care by assisting families and children affected by HIV/AIDS, and prevention by emphasizing education to help people avoid exposure.

This legislation makes a very important distinction between preventive activities and intervention activities. The bill details that are included regarding prevention and other activities are intended to help people avoid exposure by reducing the number of sexual

partners and, if they are adolescents, delaying sexual activity until they are married. This is a realistic and effective public health strategy to help end the grip of HIV/AIDS. This legislation does not eliminate the utilization of interventions that are intended to reduce the risk of infection, especially for specific high-risk populations. The distinction between prevention and intervention is important.

I am a physician who has treated AIDS patients dying from, in many instances, an avoidable disease. We need to emphasize risk avoidance but continue to provide options for risk reduction. This approach, called ABC, is a sound approach meant for the general population to save as many lives as possible. It is a comprehensive approach to AIDS prevention that recognizes that people are different and a range of behavioral options for AIDS prevention needs to be presented.

In 2 days I will be traveling to Uganda to see for myself the Uganda experience. One of the things I want to investigate in Uganda is if it is staying true to the ABC approach. Since the mid-1990s, there has been less of an emphasis on sexual behavior and more on medical solutions. In recent years, there has been a small but disturbing trend towards riskier sexual behavior, and for the first time in a decade there has been a slight increase in the national infection rate in Uganda.

The Uganda ABC model of the earlier period is the one that seems to have worked the best and is the one that has the most to teach the rest of the world. That is why I am so pleased to support this bill. I know it provides real solutions and real hope to people in Africa, and that is why I am pleased to go to Uganda in 2 days to see this firsthand myself.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the ranking member and the chairman for their work, and credit goes to President Bush for initiating this process.

Mr. Speaker, the motion we will approve today emphasizes the model of Uganda. Uganda has helped people avoid exposure and infection to HIV/AIDS. They have saved lives.

The world can take a lesson from Uganda--including the United States.

Uganda understood that, as a developing country working to build its way back from tyranny and exploitation, it had to act to save itself. It had little money, it had no expertise, it had few resources.

But Uganda had faith. Uganda had faith in God and in its people to save themselves.

President Museveni asked his people to change their behavior in order to stay alive. That is not a message that is dependent on cultural interpretation. It is not a message that requires specific technical or scientific understanding. It is a message that gave hope and health to the general population of Uganda.

And it has worked and continues to work in Uganda, Zambia, Jamaica, an Namibia.

The motion to agree to the Senate amendment that is before us is landmark legislation because it sets a course for what works in saving people's lives from the certain death of HIV/AIDS. It emphasizes treatment through antiretroviral therapy, care by assisting families and children affected by HIV/AIDS, and prevention by emphasizing education to help people avoid exposure.

This legislation makes a very important distinction between prevention activities and

intervention activities. The bill details that included in prevention are those activities intended to help people avoid exposure by reducing the number of sexual partners and--if they are adolescents--delaying sexual activity until they are married.

This is a realistic and effective public health strategy to help end the grip of HIV/AIDS.

This legislation does not eliminate the utilization of interventions that are intended to reduce the risk of infection, especially, for specific high risk populations.

The distinction between prevention and intervention is important. As a physician who has treated AIDS patients, dying from in most instances an avoidable disease, we need to emphasize risk avoidance but continue to provide options for risk reduction.

This approach, called ABC, is a sound approach meant for the general population to save as many lives as possible. It is a comprehensive approach to AIDS prevention that recognizes that people are different and a range of behavioral options for AIDS prevention needs to be presented.

In 2 days I will be traveling to Uganda to see for myself the Uganda experience. One of the things I want to investigate in Uganda is if it is staying true to the ABC approach. Since the mid 90s, there has been less of an emphasis on sexual behavior and more on medical solutions. In recent years, there has been a small but disturbing trend toward riskier sexual behavior, and for the first time in a decade there has been a slight up-tick in national infection rates.

The Uganda ABC model of the earlier period, the one that seems to have worked the best, is the one that has most to teach the rest of the world. That is why I am so pleased to support this motion and provide real solutions and real hope to the people of the world.

Ms. McCollum. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the following article from today's Washington Post be inserted in the Record.

In Another Break With Past, Kenyans See Hope on AIDS

(By Emily Wax)

Nairobi.--The preacher's message to his 3,000-member

congregation inside the Kenyan Local Believers Evangelical

Church on a rainy Sunday was a simply one: Condoms don't

protect against AIDS.

The crowd responded with a ringing ``Eh,'' meaning yes,

nodding as they clapped and rocked to his confident voice and

his message.

``In fact, if you have sex using a condom 10 times, you

will get 10 percent of the AIDS each time,'' thundered the

pastor, Solomon Ndoria, wearing a mustard-colored three-piece

suit and pumping his hands in the air. ``Then you will

actually have AIDS. So just abstain from sex.''

One day later, Lucy Wanjiku's message to the man in her

dark metal shack, standing beside her thin foam mattress, was

a simple one, too. But she mumbled it.

She needed cash. She had to feed her 4-year-old son. So the

30-year-old woman who usually sold African crafts was selling

her body.

Wanjiku, one of the many members of Ndoria's church who

live in Kangemi, a Nairobi slum, had listened to her pastor's

words. But she had also heard discussions at the local health

clinic and seen posters downtown, and she wanted her client

to use a condom.

He refused, slapping her face. Then in the dark must of her

room, on her cot, with her son crying nearby, they had sex,

she said. Afterwards, she had enough money for pounded maize.

Now she has the virus that causes AIDS. She said she believes

she will die soon.

The preacher and the prostitute exemplify the emotional

debate over AIDS in Africa and its life-and-death

consequences. As of the end of last year, an estimated 29.4

million people in sub-Saharan Africa had AIDS or HIV,

according to U.N. estimates. About 3.5 million were infected

during 2002, and an estimated 2.4 million people died of AIDS

complications that year.

In Kenya, a nation of 31 million, 15 percent of adults have

AIDS or HIV, U.S. statistics indicate. An estimated 500 to

700 Kenyans will die each day this year from AIDS-related

causes. Yet after two decades of outside assistance and

internal debate, Kenya, like most of its neighbors, has yet

to find an effective strategy for preventing the disease or

for treating those who contract it. And AIDS continues to

kill entire villages, to wipe out generations.

When the country's first free and fair elections in

December brought an end to 24 years of autocratic rule by

Daniel arap Moi, many hailed it as a decisive moment not only

in Kenya's political history but in its fight against AIDS.

The new president, Mwai Kibaki, proclaimed a ``total war on

AIDS.'' He has committed his government to help pay for the

treatment of 40,000 patients and abandoned Moi's self-

described ``shy'' policy about condom use, taking a stand

supporting condoms in addition to abstinence until marriage.

After Kibaki's election, more than 500,000 condoms were

distributed in western Kenya, where HIV infection is most

prevalent. Kibaki's government ordered 50 million condoms

from German prophylactic maker Condomi, and Kibaki said he

will now implement the country's dormant AIDS prevention

strategy, which long included plans to distribute condoms in

hair salons, banks, restaurants and bars in addition to

health facilities. Kibaki said the government will use a $100

million ``soft'' loan from the World Bank to pay for 300

million condoms over a four-year period.

Kibaki maintains that if the AIDS problem is not tackled,

none of his government's other programs will matter. ``We

must all come out and fight and eradicate this disease,

because there won't be any point of improving the welfare of

people who are going to die,'' he said last month. ``I would

want us to look back and say, `That is the disease that used

to kill us.' ''

Anti-AIDS crusaders say they hope Kibaki continues to

follow a path that diverges sharply from the practice of many

African governments to keep silent about condom use and AIDS.

Ghana and Rwanda, largely Christian nations, are still

unclear about prevention policies. In contrast, Botswana,

with its tiny population of 1.6 million and its massive

infection rate of 36 percent, has been aggressive both in

rhetoric and treatment.

The most widely praised example in Africa is Kenya's

neighbor, Uganda, where the policies of President Yoweri

Museveni are credited with helping bring HIV infection rates

down from 30 percent to 5 percent. Museveni set up

aggressive and candid campaigns that included condom

distribution and a national plan to attract aid donors to

the country of 24.7 million.

``I think saving these lives is feasible in Kenya--right

now,'' said Christa Cepuch, a Kenya-based pharmacist with the

French medical aid group Doctors Without Borders. ``I think

with political will anything can happen. If Kibaki sat down

at his desk and made this happen, it would be a different

country in 10 years. Uganda did it and now Kenya can, too.''

In Africa's impoverished countries, the debate over whether

to tackle AIDS by trying to prevent it, through abstinence or

condom use, or by treating it with expensive antiretroviral

drugs, or both, is a complicated tangle that involves every

level of society--preachers, prostitutes and their clients,

farmers, orphans, drug companies and politicians.

As AIDS drugs decrease in price and advocates around the

globe lobby for more funding for their purchase, some AIDS

experts say they are seeing the first signs that treatment

might become affordable for poor countries. But at the

moment, they say, prevention is the more pressing issue.

Few Kenyans take issue with the idea that abstinence from

sex is an almost foolproof way to avoid AIDS. But in a

country where more than half the people live on less than a

dollar a day, it's not always that simple.

Because rural jobs are scarce, many Kenyans migrate to the

cities for work, leaving their families behind in small

villages. When spouses are separated for long periods, sexual

relations outside marriage become common. Or when there are

no jobs, it is not uncommon for a woman to sell her body--

perhaps just a few times in a lifetime--to feed her family

for a few days.

``Let's not be so naive and so bashful as to think people

are not going to have sex,'' said Wilson Ndgu, an energetic

Kenyan doctor who distributes condoms at bars and in health

clinics around the slums of Nairobi. ``People are having sex,

so we should be promoting condoms as a way to save lives.

That is the ethical and, frankly, the most Christian

response.''

Most Kenyans--78 percent--practice Christianity, and most

Christian denominations in Africa oppose condoms, some on the

grounds that they promote sex outside marriage, others

because they are a form of birth control. Only a few socially

liberal church leaders have come out in favor of condom use.

``To be honest, Kibaki is in for some real serious work

here. The scale of the epidemic and complete lack of response

to it has created a nation where a lot of people feel they

are helpless,'' said Chris Ouma, a Kenyan who is national

coordinator for the Action AIDS/HIV program. ``There is a lot

of education to do and a lot of working with the churches.

I've never seen such prominent leaders pray for people's

lives and then tell people not to use condoms.''

This All Africa Conference of Churches, with 168 members

from all branches of Christianity, is torn on the issue of

promoting condom use and backs a plan that tells worshipers

to wait until marriage to have sex. But Kibaki is now asking

church leaders to spend the first 15 minutes of every Sunday

sermon preaching the policy of ABC.

ABC stands for ``Abstain, Be faithful or use Condoms,'' the

approach successfully adopted in Uganda and copied by other

countries. President Bush, who has pledged $15 billion to

help pay for drugs in Africa and the Caribbean, has made ABC

official U.S. policy. The U.S. Senate approved a $15 billion

bill Friday that earmarks $3 billion a year for the next five

years for programs in Africa that include education about

condom use and promotion of faithfulness and abstinence.

Still, some church leaders refuse to support ABC, saying it

goes too far.

``This issue may be tougher than ever finding affordable

drugs for AIDS patients,'' said Melaku Kifle, outgoing

general secretary of the All Africa Conference of Churches.

``And Kibaki is trying to take a stand by pushing the ABC

policy. What will happen? No one really knows. Kibaki's

leadership in the coming years will be critical.''

As times change, there are signs that attitudes may be

changing, too.

On the television soap opera ``Saints and Sinners,'' the

characters talk about AIDS. In newspapers and on the radio,

the new government has launched an ad campaign that talks

about it, too. The ads say: ``Three people die every five

minutes from AIDS in Kenya. What are you doing about it?''

Kenyan doctors now hand out condoms in bars and talk about

prevention over warm Tusker beer. Even the national museum is

addressing the issue, running an exhibit this month on how

treatment and prevention improve the lives of patients.

``All of my friends say using condoms is like eating a

banana with the skin on,'' said Walter Koga, 22, a jobless

man who was hanging out with his friends at a barbershop in

Kangemi. ``Men just won't wear them because of stubbornness.

People say it's not manly. But attitudes are changing. People

don't want to be diseased, suffer horribly and die. I

actually thought I would never wear one and now I do. I've

changed.''

As a group of Koga's friends gathered to joke about how

they still don't want to use condoms, Lucy Wanjiku hovered

nearby, listening. She folded her arms over her chest and

rolled her eyes. She told a group of women standing nearby

about a friend of hers who had asked a man to use a condom

and ended up getting beaten.

She wanted to tell Koga's friends to stop joking, but she

didn't. Instead she went inside her dark metal shack to rest.

She was too sick and weak to fight with them.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is now the ninth time I have risen to speak against this amendment.

I practiced medicine in the Army for 6 years before I was elected to the House of Representatives, and I was in the Army when President Reagan initially made his executive order stating that we would no longer do abortions in military hospitals. We in the medical care community in the military were very pleased with this.

I have talked to a lot of nurses and a lot of doctors about this issue, and many of them are pro-life and they say they were very glad it was removed, but many of them are actually pro-choice but they all say the same thing to me. They say they are pro-choice, but I would never do an abortion. They say they are pro-choice, but I would never assist in an abortion. And they were all very, very happy to get this out of the military medical facilities.

This would be a step in the wrong direction. It would be bad for morale. And I wholeheartedly concur with the comments of my physician colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, last year the U.S. taxpayers paid $1.5 billion to fight forest fires and twenty-three firefighters lost their lives. In fact, over the past few years, taxpayers are expected to pay billions more to fight forest fires unless changes are made in forestry management. Many of the fires we have seen over the past several years could have been prevented, billions of tax dollars could have been put to better use, and dozens of lives could have been saved. Furthermore, critical forest habitat would have been saved for the enjoyment of future generations of Americans and for wildlife, including endangered species.

Too many of our nation's forests continue to be damaged by out of control forest fires, insect infestations, diseases, and invasive species. Today, Federal forestry experts estimate that 190 million acres of federal forest are at risk for catastrophic wildfire. Unfortunately, current laws put too many barriers and delays in the way of properly managing our forests, meaning that these forests will remain at risk for years to come unless better management practices are implemented in a more timely manner. It currently takes several years for forest management plans to get through the bureaucratic and legal quagmire. During this delay, too many forests suffer damage from fires and insects and billions of dollars--and in some cases human lives--are lost.

Last year, the President proposed a Healthy Forests Initiative to facilitate better management of forests. Bipartisan legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives, The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (H.R. 1904) to address this concern. Many of the proposals contained in this legislation were put forward during the Clinton administration but were never acted upon by that administration.

Under current rules, it is estimated that federal land managers will only be able to address the catastrophic fire threat in about 2.5 million of these 190 million acres each year. This is unacceptable.

In 2002, then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) included an environmental rider to allow for logging in the Black Hills of South Dakota to protect these forests from catastrophic fires. Senator Daschle recognized the dangers that these potential catastrophic fires could pose to the forests and communities of South Dakota. Under the Daschle provision all court cases to block forestry management plans in the Black Hills were prohibited. H.R. 1904 does not go nearly as far as Senator Daschle's plan. H.R. 1904 allows appeals to be made, but expedites the process so that it does not take several years to approve forest management plans.

This is a common sense solution to a very serious problem. H.R. 1904 finds the middle ground between the Daschle plan, which prohibited challenges, and the current system, which allows flammable underbrush to pile up, forests to become dangerously dense, and forest fires to rage out of control while the courts are jammed with suits over forestry management plans.

Through the use of environmentally sensitive thinning, prescribed burns, and other scientifically validated management practices, our nation's forests can be returned to a sustainable balance, the risks of catastrophic wildfire and disease infestations can be reduced, and habitat for wildlife will be preserved.

This bipartisan legislation reforms the current forest management system so that forest management plans can be approved and implemented in a timely process while still respecting the right of public participation in the decision making process. I believe that this legislation will aid us in this effort and I support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of legislation introduced by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart): H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

The parents and family of Laci Peterson have asked that the name of this bill be changed to Laci and Connor's Law. I think for most Americans, this is, shall we say, a no-brainer. People are committing acts of violence against pregnant women, and, unfortunately, in some jurisdictions there is no way to prosecute in a situation where there has been the death of the unborn baby. We are talking about babies that are wanted by their mothers.

Indeed, we had a case of a military servicemember who specifically was trying to kill the baby inside his pregnant wife and succeeded in doing that. He did so on Federal property, and we had to prosecute in State court in that situation.

I think this law is very, very badly needed. It is the right thing to do. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003. This economic plan will lead to the creation of jobs and stimulate our economy both in the short-term and the long-term.

This plan provides much needed tax relief for seniors, families and for small businesses all with the aim of creating jobs and getting our economy going.

First, as an age group, senior citizens will be the most benefited by cutting the dividend tax. Seniors are more likely than most Americans to own dividend-paying stocks, receiving 47 percent of all dividends.

Since 1978, half of all dividend-paying stocks have stopped paying dividends, primarily because they are double taxed by the Federal Government. A drastic reduction in the dividend tax will (1) encourage businesses to pay higher dividends, (2) give a more dependable return on investments, and (3) lead to better corporate accountability.

Many seniors took the necessary steps to provide for their retirement and double taxation of dividends hurts them and must be eliminated. Eliminating the double taxation of dividends will put billions of dollars back into the economy each year and enhance the retirement savings of all Americans.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and unfortunately they are being taxed out of business. Passage of the President's tax plan will provide small businesses with significant tax incentives to expand their operations. Specifically, the bill will boost the economy by allowing small businesses to write-off in the first year, $100,000 in new equipment purchases. Current law allows them to deduct only $25,000. This level of tax relief will lead to equipment purchases, which will in turn create jobs and increase productivity.

In addition to the provisions above, other provisions of the tax bill will further benefit American families, who are hardest hit by Federal tax policies.

Adoption of the President's tax plan will increase and expand the child tax credit to $1,000 per child today, instead of waiting until 2010 as is in the current law. The bill also cuts the marriage penalty, which unfairly forces married couples to pay more in taxes.

Increasing the per child tax credit and cutting the marriage penalty, empower American families by letting them keep more of the money they have worked so hard to earn.

This is vital legislation and I urge my colleagues, for the sake of America's workers, seniors and families, to vote yes for H.R. 2, the Jobs Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003.