Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Weldon of Florida

Amendment No. 9: In section 3(c)(1), strike ``There'' and

insert ``Except as provided in paragraph (3), there''.

At the end of section 3(c), insert the following new

paragraph:

(3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2),

the total amount authorized to be appropriated under this

subsection shall not exceed the amount actually appropriated

for the Foundation for fiscal year 2009 if--

(A) the total amount appropriated for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2010 is

less than $18,026,300,000;

(B) the total amount appropriated for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration Systems for

fiscal year 2010 is less than $4,757,800,000; or

(C) the total amount appropriated for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Operations for

fiscal year 2010 is less than $6,625,700,000.

[Submitted May 2, 2007]

Offered By: Mr. Weldon of Florida

Amendment No. 9: In section 3(a)(1), strike ``There'' and

insert ``Except as provided in paragraph (3), there''.

At the end of section 3(a), insert the following new

paragraph:

(3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2),

the total amount authorized to be appropriated under this

subsection shall not exceed the amount actually appropriated

for the Foundation for fiscal year 2007 if--

(A) the total amount appropriated for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2008 is

less than $17,309,400,000;

(B) the total amount appropriated for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration Systems for

fiscal year 2008 is less than $3,923,800,000; or

(C) the total amount appropriated for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Operations for

fiscal year 2008 is less than $6,791,700,000.

In section 3(b)(1), strike ``There'' and insert ``Except as

provided in paragraph (3), there''.

At the end of section 3(b), insert the following new

paragraph:

(3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2),

the total amount authorized to be appropriated under this

subsection shall not exceed the amount actually appropriated

for the Foundation for fiscal year 2008 if--

(A) the total amount appropriated for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2009 is

less than $17,614,200,000;

(B) the total amount appropriated for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration Systems for

fiscal year 2009 is less than $4,312,800,000; or

(C) the total amount appropriated for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Operations for

fiscal year 2009 is less than $6,710,300,000.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I commend my colleagues for bringing this important legislation to the floor.

It was obvious, I think, to all people watching the news coverage during the recent Hezbollah-Israel war that it was standard operating procedure for Hezbollah to place its soldiers that were firing rockets into Israel, in housing projects, in housing areas where there were civilians, and the only way

that Israel could respond to that rocket fire involved risking the lives of the women and children who lived in those areas. It was disgraceful and it was a violation of international law. And to me it is absolutely ridiculous that Hezbollah would find some photo of a bunch of Palestinian youths leaning on a tank and try to make an argument in front of the world stage that that is the moral equivalent of what they were doing. There is absolutely no comparison.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to commend my colleague from New York and people on both sides of the aisle for bringing forward this important piece of legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise today in opposition to the Progressive Caucus budget.

This debate today could be described as a debate about the good, the bad, and the ugly. A kinder way you could describe it is the responsible, the irresponsible, and the reckless.

We are going to have the House Republican budget brought forward on this floor today, brought forward by our chairman, Mr. Ryan, a responsible budget, a good budget, a budget that comes to balance in 5 years without raising taxes and tries to address the challenge that we face in the category of entitlements.

We have the Democrat leadership budget that is going to be brought forward, a budget that has the biggest tax increase in our Nation's history, and a budget, I might add, that not only includes significant increases in spending, but as well makes no effort to deal with the challenge of entitlements. I will just quote from the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke, who said, ``Without early

and meaningful action to address entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.''

Now, the budget alternative that we have right now in front of us I would describe as the ugly or the reckless or the completely irresponsible, because not only does it include the biggest tax increase in our Nation's history and significant increases in spending; it runs up entitlement spending even further. And the part that I think is the most egregious, it actually calls the effort of our brave women and men fighting in Afghanistan, fighting in Iraq to establish a beacon of liberty in that dark area of the world, it calls that effort the single largest waste of taxpayers' money and the biggest current drain on the U.S. Treasury today.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this alternative budget and vote ``yes'' on the Republican budget.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my objections to the budget put forward by the new majority in the Congress. Their budget proposes the largest tax increase in American history and it presses the accelerator on government spending.

What Washington has is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem. Revenues from taxes flowing into the U.S. Treasury have been flowing at record levels. Even when you factor in the $1 trillion dollar tax relief that was enacted by President Bush and a Republican Congress, the taxes that came into the Treasury in 2006 were exactly what the Congressional Budget Office projected they would be back in March 2000--nearly 9 months before President Bush proposed such tax relief. Clearly, Washington's problem is not a revenue problem. Washington has a spending problem.

Yet the Democrat budget plan fails to recognize this and instead they choose more taxes and more spending. They fail to extend important tax relief that has given Americans more control over their lives and businesses. It will put the breaks on the economic expansion that has put the United States in the enviable position of having the most vibrant and growing economy over the last 4 years. We have led the developed world in the creation of new jobs over the past 4 years-- creating 7.6 million new jobs for Americans.

Not only does the Democrat budget impose the largest tax increase in our Nation's history, but it also puts spending on an upward trajectory that will further imperil our children's future, saddling them with even more debt. Not only does the Democrat budget fail to address the growth of entitlement spending that is imperiling our children's future, but also it makes the problem worse by putting off needed changes and by increasing domestic discretionary spending at a rate that exceeds the rate of inflation.

With regard to tax increases, Democrats had a time during the House Budget Committee meeting to adopt amendments protecting the tax relief that Americans are enjoying today. The Democrats voted lock step against each and every amendment that would have protected the tax relief that Americans are currently enjoying and that is spurring our economy.

Don't take my word for it, just look at the Washington Post. They sum it up in today's paper:

``Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's

signature tax cuts, they project a surplus in 2012 only by

assuming that all of the cuts expire on schedule in 2010.''

``But the [Democrat budget] proposal, set for a vote today,

requires either that millions of middle-class families be hit

with higher taxes next spring or that somebody else pay an

extra $50 billion. . . . That stark choice is the result of

the inexorable expansion of the alternative minimum tax, a

parallel tax structure that adds $6,800, on average, to a

family's tax bill. Next month, an estimated 4.2 million

Americans will pay the tax. Next spring, that number will

balloon to 23 million unless Congress takes action.

Sadly, the Democrat's budget has no plan for addressing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Someone will face a $50 billion tax increase under the Democrats budget--we will have to see who is next on their hit list as they have already taken aim to repeal most all of the tax relief provided to Americans since 2001. Just what tax increases are already in store for Americans?

The Florida sales tax deduction is repealed in this budget. Floridians will be hit harder than most Americans by the Democrats tax plan, as Floridians will no longer be afforded the opportunity to deduct sales taxes. While resident's of states that have a state income tax can deduct those costs from their taxes, Floridians have no such deduction, so I was pleased when we were finally able to give Floridians equal treatment by allowing a sales tax deduction--about $650 dollars for a family of 5 earning $40,000 per year. The Democrat bill repeals this tax deduction.

Taxes on dividends will increase. This will hit senior citizens the hardest as they often rely on safe and secure investments to supplement their Social Security benefits in their golden years.

The child tax credit is cut in half falling from $1,000 per child to $500 per child as if the cost of raising and caring for children is going down.

Democrats resurrect the marriage tax penalty forcing married couples to pay more in taxes that those living together out of wedlock.

The death tax will be resurrected making it difficult for mom and pop businesses to be handed down to their children.

Marginal tax rates will increase for all Americans. The lowest wage income tax payers will see their tax bill increase by 50 percent, paying a 15 percent tax rate rather than a 10 percent tax rate.

Capital gains tax rates will be raised significantly. For any student of the recent economic growth in our Nation knows that the capital gains tax cuts have been a significant driver of economic growth in the U.S. over the past 4 years. And, the stimulative effect that the cut in capitals gains has had on our economy has actually resulted in more revenue flowing into the U.S. Treasury than would have flowed with out the cut in capital gains taxes. Raising these taxes, as the Democrats are doing will put the breaks on our economy and slow economic growth.

If there is any doubt about where the heart of the Democrat party in Congress lies on taxes and spending, only consider the votes that we just held. Over half of the Democrats in the House of Representatives just voted for the substitute budget offered by Representative Kilpatrick. That budget proposal raised taxes by more than $919 billion--more than 2 times the amount in the underlying Democrat budget. This is not really surprising given that the underlying Democrat budget is still $200 billion below the amount of increased taxes they will need to carry out their spending plans in their budget. So, Americans should be prepared, this proposed $400 billion budget that the Democrats are poised to approve today is just the opening shot. More tax hikes are in store.

I would like to briefly address the spending side of the Democrat budget. Their budget favors higher spending. They put both entitlement spending and spending through annual appropriations bills (known as discretionary spending) on a path to receive automatic increases each and every year.

Earlier this year, the Medicare Board of Trustees issued their report on the financial status of Medicare. They stated that Medicare will go bankrupt in a couple of years. Yet, rather that seeking to address this issue, the Democrats simply ignore the realities and pretend that this problem does not exist. It is irresponsible for the Democrats to simply stick their head in the sand and pretend that Medicare will not run out of money, but that is the path they have chosen--their budget does nothing to address this looming bankruptcy. I believe our seniors deserve better. If we simply allowed entitlement programs to grow at 4.1 percent a year rather than the 4.7 percent a year proposed in the Democrats budget, we could save Medicare and Social Security for future generations.

Their PAYGO rules continue not only to favor automatic increases in spending and higher taxes, but they also allow them to spend now and pay for the spending later. By spending now, they also increase the baseline budget so that it is easier to continue increased spending in future years.

The Democrat budget also eliminates the domestic emergency reserve fund contained in the current law, and provides no criteria for domestic emergency spending--which is exempt from budget disciplines. Absent a reserve fund, Democrats are destined to repeat in 2008, what they just did this month--designate another $28 billion in ``emergency spending'' bypassing all of the budgetary discipline rules. If there is any doubt about the Democrats' lack of budgetary discipline the fact that the majority of their caucus just voted for substitute budgets that increase taxes by between $950 and $717 billion. That is more than twice the tax increase in their base bill. And on the spending side, these alternative budgets would have increased spending by hundreds of billions of dollars more.

Another unrealistic assumption in the Democrat budget plan is their assumption that they will receive over $392.5 billion in new tax revenue that they will be able to use for spending and reducing the deficit by closing the mystical tax gap. Yet The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service has testified the IRS could collect, at best, about $20 billion of these taxes 5 years after implementing specific policies recommended in the President's budget.

The Democrats remove the firewall between defense and non-defense spending enabling them to cut the defense spending further and spend the money on other programs.

If there was ever any doubt about that Congressional Democrats are the party of ``Tax and Spend'' those doubts are put to bed today, as they have come out in spades for both.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Blue Water Highway Act of 2007.

As Members of this body know, the ability to cost-effectively transport goods to domestic markets is vital to our economy. It's becoming increasingly clear, however, that economic and population growth is far outpacing our ability to maintain and expand our existing transportation infrastructure, posing serious, long-term challenges to our current reliance upon land-based shipping.

In Florida and around the country, roadway congestion and driver shortages are already making it difficult for trucking companies to expand capacity. Freight shipping by rail is encountering serious capacity problems in some regions, as well. And, recent estimates indicate that overall freight traffic will continue to increase exponentially in the coming years--up as much as 70 percent by 2020.

Madam Speaker, we are presented with a choice as we seek to address this capacity crunch: We can try to engineer our way out of the current situation at hundreds of billions of dollars in new federal expenditures. Or, we can find alternate innovative modes of transportation that will help absorb some of the traffic our growing economy continues to create.

While we must continue to invest in our surface transportation infrastructure, I believe that an alternative, environmentally sound mode of transportation is at our fingertips that will lessen highway congestion, save energy, and reduce air pollution.

Short sea shipping, or what I call the ``Blue Water Highway,'' involves shipping cargo by sea between U.S. ports. By establishing a ``highway'' along our coast where smaller cargo ships travel from port to port along the Eastern Seaboard, Gulf Coast, Pacific Coastline, and the Great Lakes, we have the opportunity to significantly reduce highway congestion in an environmentally friendly and economically sound manner. Additionally, sea-based shipping would mitigate against wear and tear on our highways, potentially delaying the need for expensive taxpayer-funded improvement projects and allowing such funds instead to be used to free traffic congestion.

Though getting the Blue Water Highway up and running is no small task, I believe that a modest tax policy change provided in my legislation would significantly encourage the development of a short sea shipping industry.

The Blue Water Highway Act of 2007 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to exempt cargo shipped between U.S. mainland ports from the harbor maintenance tax. This simple tax reform would remove the primary prohibitive cost to short sea shipping, allowing designated cargo vessels to travel from Port Canaveral in Florida, to Baltimore, and then onto New York and Bridgeport, Conn. making other port calls along the way without having to pay the cargo tax each time it enters a port.

Madam Speaker, amending the harbor maintenance tax is a reasonable policy objective that would go a long way toward moving short sea shipping from the backwater of the shipping industry.

Mr. Speaker, I thought freedom was worth fighting for. I thought, when we saw all those Iraqis risk their lives to go and

vote and establish a government and establish a Constitution and to have, possibly, freedom of speech, that was something worth our level of effort. If you actually go over there and talk to those people, you find out that it is a minority that is trying to break the will of this body. That is what is going on.

What I object to in this bill is the way you have brought this to the floor. You have got subsidies for spinach. You know, my constituents are asking, who put that in the bill, Popeye? Why don't you let us have a vote on whether or not we want to attach funding for peanut farmers and funding for spinach farmers to a war supplemental?

Yes, why don't we have a vote on the Murtha language? Why are you denying us an opportunity, this body, a Democratic institution, the ability to say collectively as a majority, we think this kind of language is what we want to have?

I don't deny the gentleman from Pennsylvania, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, to put forward his plan. Even though he is not the Commander in Chief, the way I read the Constitution, he can do that. But the way I also read the Constitution and the Federalist papers, we are supposed to have some kind of a vote, and you are just bringing this thing forward under a closed rule.

I personally think that is a disgrace, what is going on here. I am going to vote against this bill. I hope, as we move forward in this process, democracy, which the Iraqis are willing to risk their lives for, will someday be reinstituted in this body here.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my full support for alternative water supply initiatives and my opposition to the bill before us. We have an existing program that is able to provide affordable loans to communities to fund such projects--the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF).

The bill before us is fiscally irresponsible. It takes what was a pilot program enacted several years ago and which was never funded and turns it into a new, permanent $125 million federal grant program with a new bureaucracy to implement it.

We do not need this program. The existing SRF gives taxpayers a much bigger bang for their buck. By establishing a new, permanent grant program, today's bill will divert dollars from the SRF leaving fewer dollars for the SRF to support a broader spectrum of water projects.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007. This bill is the third water bill brought to the floor this week. These three bills are filled with excessive spending, propose no way to pay for the increased spending, create duplicative bureaucracies, and impose requirements leading to inefficiencies that will lead taxpayers to getting less work for each Federal dollar spent. H.R. 720 is fiscally irresponsible.

The fact is, Madam Chairman, we already have a program in operation designed to help State and local communities with water and sewer projects--The State Revolving Fund (SRF). The SRF is a fiscally responsible program that provides Federal assistance through loans and other cost-sharing arrangements to help States assist municipalities with high priority projects. I support the SRF and believe it strikes an appropriate balance between Federal and State responsibility with respect to improving water systems in communities across the country. While today's bill authorizes SRF funding, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that in total the bill will actually suck about $49 million over 5 years away from the SRF to be used in two new and less effective grant programs created in H.R. 720. Unlike SRF funds, these no-strings-attached grants do not have to be repaid and, in my estimation, will encourage States and municipalities to rely too heavily on Federal funding for improving their communities.

Unfortunately, creating more government bureaucracy and undermining an existing loan program is not even the worst of this bill. H.R. 720 also amounts to a kickback to special interest labor unions. This bill imposes on States costly Davis-Bacon labor rules. Democrats are telling the American taxpayers that inserting special provisions for their political base is more important than fiscal responsibility. Under Davis-Bacon, any project funded

through this bill will cost American taxpayers a 15 percent surcharge. This mandate effectively reduces the number of projects that can be completed under H.R. 720 by 15 percent. Adding a 15 percent surcharge will only serve to delay projects addressing water supply shortages and sewage treatment problems. The Davis-Bacon provision also discriminates against smaller--often minority owned--businesses that don't have the means to comply with its owner requirements.

Finally, Madam Chairman, H.R. 720 raises taxes--$256 million over 5 years.

In short, today's bill is an excellent case study for the new Democratic Majority's priorities: More expensive bureaucracy, a kickback to labor at taxpayers' expense, creation of duplicative government programs, and a hidden tax increase on ordinary Americans.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 720.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns about the bill that is before us, H.R. 569. At the beginning of the 110th Congress, the Democrat majority talked about the need for fiscal responsibility and with much fanfare passed the pay-go rules. Yet, for almost every bill that has been considered thus far this year they have waived the pay-go rules. They do so again today.

The bill they have brought to the House floor authorizes $1.8 billion in increased federal spending over the next five years for state and local sewer programs. This $1.8 billion price tag is more than a half- a-billion more than what the Republican majority put forward in the last Congress when it was seeking to reauthorize this program.

The bill under consideration today is anything but music to taxpayers' ears. Essentially, the Democrats are proposing a no-strings- attached taxpayer handout to states for local water sewer projects without responsible cost-sharing arrangements provided in currently existing programs.

Furthermore, Florida communities would receive very little, if any, assistance. The state of Florida has already addressed many of the problems associated with mixed storm water and sewage systems and would thus receive very little benefit. So, this largely creates a new program for which Florida taxpayers will pay on others' behalf.

A more equitable and fiscally responsible approach is to not divert funding from the State Revolving Fund program as is proposed in this bill. The SRF already helps states and local communities fund various water improvement projects. However, it does so in a more equitable and fiscally responsible manner by providing low-cost loans and other cost- sharing arrangements that encourage states and local communities to take ownership of high priority projects.

Today's bill undermines this responsible approach and would incentivize states and local communities to become more dependent on federal subsidies for short- and long-term financing of their water sewer systems, rather than on the existing SRF. This bill simply hands money to the states, who then pass it on to local communities, without requiring them to have a detailed financing plan in place, and without cost sharing.

For these reasons I am not able to support H.R. 569.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address H. Con. Res. 63, disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007 to deploy 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

This resolution essentially has, by my interpretation, three sections. It has the first section, which speaks in support of our troops; and then it has the second section, disapproving of the mission of 20,000 of the troops, which is a little bit of an inconsistency. We are saying we support the troops, but we don't support what you are trying to do.

But the most important part of this resolution is the third section shown here in white. There is nothing there. No plan.

So the authors of this resolution are essentially saying, we don't approve of the President's plan but we have no plan to deal with this challenge.

Ladies and gentlemen, we won the war in Iraq. What we are struggling to win now is the peace, establishing a peaceful government that can run this country. And we have very determined opponents seeking to make sure that chaos reigns in that country and we do what this resolution is leading us to do, which is essentially to leave.

Indeed, a senior member on that side of the aisle recently said in the press that, ``This is the bark, and the bite is coming.'' We supposedly support the troops, but what is next is no funding for the troops; that this Congress under this new leadership is going to exercise the power of the purse and cut off the flow of money.

But, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, this is not Vietnam. The war in Iraq in not going to go away. It is going to continue to be a problem. If we do withdraw our troops, as many in this room want us to do, the war on terror will continue.

We had a meeting today with the Ambassador from Jordan and the Ambassador from Egypt asking us not to withdraw; that we have to stay and persist and to try to establish a peaceful regime there. And they have their reasons, because they know this is a component of the war on terror. And the war on terror is a bad term; it is a war on radical fundamentalist jihadist Islam. And these jihadists are not going to stop coming at us. Indeed, since over the last 4 years, there have been attack after attack after attack in Bali, in Spain, in London, and they are going to keep coming after Western interests, because their goal and their agenda is to defeat the West, to defeat everything we stand for, and to ultimately establish a global fundamentalist Islamic regime.

I oppose this resolution. I am going to vote against it, and I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. The President's plan was recommended to us in the Iraq Study Group. It is amazing, many of the people who are saying they are going to vote for this supported the Iraq Study Group, and the Iraq Study Group recommended many of the components that are in the President's plan. We need to give this time to work. I know the American people are losing patience in this conflict, but I also know the stakes in this conflict are huge. And if we fail, the consequences could be huge to the region, they will be huge to the world, they will be huge to the American people and our children and our grandchildren.

So I strongly encourage a ``no'' vote on this resolution

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of the lemonade that the gentleman from Illinois was referring to, the impact on NASA in this omnibus continuing resolution.

The Democratic majority rejected my request to be permitted to offer an amendment addressing some of the devastating cuts to NASA that are included in this bill. The Democrat majority has chosen, I believe, partisanship over partnership. The rhetoric about an open process transparency partnership is nothing but a sham. There is no transparency, there is no openness.

This House passed a NASA budget. We passed $16.7 billion for NASA. Nearly all of the increased funds in that bill went to fund the replacement for the shuttle. Now, this bill drastically reduces those funds. It will result in delays in producing the vehicle to replace the shuttle, the need to continue the shuttle beyond 2010. In my opinion, these cuts in the NASA budget will lead to billions of dollars of increased funds needed in the outyears to keep the Orion Project on track.

There is only one way to interpret this, my colleagues, and that is to say this is a back-handed way to destroy

the manned space flight program, to destroy the work that is going on in places like Kennedy Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Flight Center.

And to say that there are no earmarks in this bill, in my opinion, is a little bit tongue in cheek. Within this budget is a huge transfer of funds that the administration did not ask for. I don't know what else you can call it other than an earmark.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is very different from the campaign promises that were made just a few short months ago by the Democrats. Counter to the arguments made today by Democrats in support of their bill, experts in the field, including the Democrats' own past and present budget directors, say that this bill will not save seniors or the government money. The bottom line is that this bill is more about politics and partisanship than it is about partnership and lowering prices for prescription drugs.

Rather than the ``Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act,'' a more appropriate name for this bill might be, ``The Government Price Control and Limited Access to Drugs Act.'' Price controls, which supporters of this bill advocate, lead to shortages and denial of access to many drugs.

Robert Reischauer, appointed by Democrats as the Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from 1989 through 1995, had this to say recently about the Medicare Prescription Drug plan and the Democrats' proposed legislation (H.R. 4):

People said it's going to cost a fortune. And the price

came in lower than anybody thought. Then people like me said

they're low-balling the prices the first year and they'll

jack up the rates down the line. And, lo and behold, the

prices fell again. And the reaction was, ``We've got to have

the government negotiate lower prices.'' At some point you

have to ask: What are we looking for here?

In other words, Mr. Reischauer, who now works for the liberal-leaning Urban Institute, says that we have already achieved in the current plan what the Democrats say they want to achieve with H.R. 4.

Further undermining the Democrats' claim is the January 10, 2007, cost estimate and analysis of their bill by the CBO concluding that H.R. 4 would not save seniors or the government money. The Democrats had hoped to use any savings for additional government spending. The problem is CBO says there will be no savings. Quoting from that analysis:

. . . the Secretary would be unable to negotiate prices

across the broad range of covered Part D drugs that are more

favorable than those obtained by PDPs under current law.

[PDPs are the current private plans available to seniors

under Part D.] [T]he Secretary . . . would lack the leverage

to obtain significant discounts in his negotiations with drug

manufacturers. . . . [P]rices for covered Part D drugs would

continue to be determined through negotiations between drug

manufacturers and PDPs. . . . PDPs have both the incentives

and the tools to negotiate drug prices that the government,

under the legislation, would not have.

CBO, economists and Republicans understand basic economics: When you have no tools at your disposal at the negotiating table, you have no leverage and no ability to achieve your goals. The Democrats removed from their bill the most important tool in lowering prices. This is the very tool that PDPs have used very effectively--their ability to establish a formulary for their plan that includes some drugs while excluding others. Absent the ability to exclude some drugs from their prescription drug plan, the government has no leverage to achieve lower prices. When seniors were told that the Democrats were planning to establish a plan that excluded some drugs, 89 percent of seniors said they would object to such a plan. It was this strong reaction from seniors that led Democrats to drop this plan.

It is this ability to exclude hundreds of drugs that enables the Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA), Dept. of Defense (DOD) and Medicaid to negotiate prices with manufacturers. The VA also saves money by requiring that over 80 percent of VA prescriptions be filled by mail order and by limiting access to local pharmacies. The VA approved drug list includes less than 40 percent of drugs approved by the FDA since 1990, and less than 20 percent of drugs approved by the VA since 2000. VA drug prices also do not include the costs of administering the program or paying for pharmacy services. The tradeoff for those in these programs is that they have access to far fewer than the 4,300 drugs currently available to seniors across the Medicare drug plans. Eighty-nine percent of seniors do not want the government to apply such restrictions to Medicare.

The good news for seniors is that currently there is negotiation for drug prices by those who have the leverage and tools at their disposal to secure better prices for seniors and the government. The various Medicare Part D [PDP] plans do negotiate with drug manufacturers for drug prices and they do so in a vigorously competitive environment. Each of these plans has a drug formulary (list of drugs available to enrollees in that plan) and manufacturers know that if they do not provide Part D plan with a reasonable price, their drug will not be offered in that plan resulting in the loss of drug sales for their drugs. These Part D private plans have the ability to leave the negotiating table and exclude drugs from their plan and this has lowered drug costs significantly. Medicare recently released a study showing that estimated costs of the Part D program have fallen by over $100 billion, primarily due to the ability of plans to negotiate savings.

Under the current program, once these plans have completed their negotiations, seniors are able to review the plans to see which plan best meets their needs in terms of drugs, including copayments, deductibles, and other factors. My constituents in Florida District 15 have dozens of different plans from which to choose.

There is a saying that, ``You don't fix what ain't broken.'' Given that over 80 percent of seniors are satisfied with their current plan, it is safe to assume that it isn't broken. Unfortunately, for Part D beneficiaries, the Democrats' bill amounts to choosing partisanship over partnership. Now-Speaker Pelosi said of the Republican Medicare Drug Plan back in 2003: ``The Republican plan is a plan to end Medicare. I urge my colleagues to reject this raw deal for America's seniors.'' Contrary to her dire prediction, it has turned out to be a very good plan for seniors as the average senior is saving hundreds of dollars per year.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I commend her for calling this Special Order.

We have concluded now the first complete week under the Democrat majority rule, and I think it is worth talking about what their accomplishments have been. And I am very glad you brought up the issue of stem cells.

I am a physician, as you pointed out. I practiced medicine for 15 years before coming to the House. Indeed, I still see patients. Internal medicine. Many of my patients had Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, the diseases that these folks claim they are going to cure with embryonic stem cells.

And to me I think it is really very unfortunate what they have been doing. It is really creating what I feel is false hope. Indeed, it is a deception to tell people that embryonic stem cells have that kind of potential.

And the reason I say that is embryonic stem cells have never been shown to be safe in animal studies. They have never really been studied in humans, whereas adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells have not only been shown to be safe in clinical therapeutics, but they have also been tested not only in animals and shown to be safe, but they have been given to human beings and shown to be effective and to work; whereas embryonic stem cells have a chronic problem, you might say. They form tumors, a specific type of tumor called the teratoma, in every animal study in which they have been used. And before embryonic stem cells could ever be used in any clinical application whatsoever, they have to first be shown to be safe. And for them to be shown to be safe, somebody has to turn off this property that they have to form tumors. And yet we saw person after person parading down to the floor saying these embryonic stem cells are going to cure this and cure this and cure that. And lo and behold, it is quite possible they will cure absolutely nothing.

Indeed, what is very, very interesting, and this just came out this past week, the week that the Democrats, in my opinion, are putting this deception forward on the American people, is it has been shown that amniotic fluid is filled with stem cells that have all of the properties of embryonic stem cells. They can do all the things and they behave just like embryonic stem cells, but they do not form tumors. And, of course, these cells are plentiful. They are noncontroversial. You don't have to kill a human embryo, which is what you have to do to get embryonic stem cells. You have to kill a human life. You have to kill a human embryo at its earliest stages to get those stem cells out, whereas amniotic fluid-derived stem cells behave just like the embryonic stem cells. They do all the things the embryonic stem cells do, but they don't form tumors. So they have tremendous potential application in clinical therapeutics.

So to me it was unfortunate, the deceptive messaging that went out from this body. And, indeed, it seemed to me like the bulk of the American press corps buys it hook, line, and sinker that these cures are around the corner. But in reality science is moving to a place where embryonic stem cells are not going to be used.

And the other thing is they have been studied for 25 years. There were many people who came to the floor and

said this research is just beginning. The Journal of Science had a cover story about 6 months ago on embryonic stem cells. ``Twenty-Five Years of Study'' was the cover. It was not 8 years. It is not a new field of study. It is actually an old field of study, and it is a field of study that, in my opinion, may yield knowledge and you may be able to write a Ph.D. thesis based on the material that you discover or learn from embryonic stem cells.

And, of course, we are funding it. We are funding it through the NIH right now. We are increasing funding each year, embryonic stem cell research, on the cell lines that exist at the NIH. And really all this study did was just to prove the destruction of more embryos, and that is really what the bill is all about. And this is a critical line in the sand, you might say, that our Nation's research establishment is moving across. We are now going to say that it is okay to take these forms of human life and exploit them in the lab, destroy them for therapeutic purposes, and we have never gone down that path before.

And that is not where it will end. They are saying now it is the ``excess embryos'' from the fertility clinics. They will come back next and say, well, there really wasn't that many available in those clinics and we really need to create human embryos for research purposes and we need to specifically create them through a process called cloning. They want to do human cloning. That is creating human life through the process of cloning for their ``research,'' and this is what they always do in all the arguments, saying what it will cure.

So before I yield back, I just want to say they were deceptive not just in their stem cell arguments. You were talking about taxes when I came to the floor. To me it was so ironic, or deceptive, almost like a culture of deception, in my opinion. They passed PAYGO and said no more are we going to pay for things if we don't have the funds to do it, and then the next day they waived PAYGO on their homeland security bill. I mean they get up and they say they are going to do all these things, and the very next day they waived that rule requirement in their homeland security bill. Furthermore, they had absolutely no explanation of how we were going to fund the provisions in their bill.

The Washington Post, a liberal Democrat newspaper, speculated that the cargo-screening requirements that they put in that bill, which the industry says is unnecessary, could end up costing our economy hundreds of billions of dollars. That is the Washington Post. An anti-Republican newspaper said that. They put that in there, and they have no explanation of how they are going to pay for it.

And, of course, I guess the ultimate irony was all the talk about doing away with earmarks and then they pass a minimum wage bill through the House that has a special earmark that was placed in there by somebody that benefited a company in Speaker Pelosi's congressional district, which, to me, is absolutely unbelievable.

But, anyway, I have covered a lot of territory. I really came to talk about stem cells, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Well, you are absolutely right. Adult stem cell research in humans has been funded for about 25, maybe even 30 years. Embryonic stem cell research in the mouse began about 25 years ago.

In the mid-1990s, the House and Senate passed and President Clinton signed into law a provision that said no Federal funds would go to any research that involved the destruction of a human embryo.

Shortly after that a doctor by the name of Jamie Thompson, I think it is, at the University of Wisconsin was successful in extracting embryonic stem cells from a human embryo. People had been doing that in the mouse, but I guess nobody had either the technique or the hutzpah, as my Jewish friends like to say, to actually destroy a human embryo in his lab. But he did that. He successfully isolated the human embryonic stem cell. And then researchers wanted to get Federal funding. This has always been about Federal funding.

We don't have a law restricting embryo research. People can do it. I think a lot of it is unethical, but there is no law barring it. This is all about getting the government to fund it.

Under the Clinton policy, because we had a law in place saying you can't get funding if you are destroying an embryo, what the Clinton people did is they destroyed the embryos in an outside lab, and then sent the embryonic stem cells over to the NIH and they funded the research. I and several other Members wrote the Clinton administration a letter saying you may not be violating the letter of the law, but you are certainly violating the spirit of the law. That is what President Bush inherited in 2000 when he became President of the United States.

What President Bush said, which I think is a reasonable thing, all of these embryos have been destroyed and all of these cell lines are being studied at the NIH. We don't want to throw them away. The embryos have been destroyed, but we don't want to keep destroying embryos, so we will continue to fund research on these embryos, we just won't destroy any more embryos. That is really what this debate has been about. The people on the other side of the debate have been saying this has so much incredible promise so we have to fund it. Even though, by the way, the biotech industry won't fund it; venture capitalists won't fund it. We want Uncle Sam and taxpayers to fund it, 50 percent of whom are pro- life and are opposed to this kind of research, because it ``has so much promise,'' quote/unquote, is what they have been arguing.

When you actually look at the data, it really doesn't bear up to scrutiny. That is the fundamental point of my argument. If you look at the science, the science shows a lot of potential with adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, and now these new amniotic fluid derived stem cells. The embryonic stem cells form tumors. Their potential application to therapeutics, I think, is very small, remote, unlikely. You have to turn off their ability to form tumors before they can be used.

Madam Speaker, I rise to extend congratulations to the retiring Director of the John F. Kennedy Space Center, James W. Kennedy, for his vast contributions to our Nation's space program. Jim's long and successful career has ensured that America's leadership in space exploration will continue well into the future.

Jim Kennedy was raised in my congressional district, on the Space Coast of Florida. In fact, he was in the first graduating class at Cocoa Beach High School. After graduation, he began his distinguished career with NASA in 1968 in the Aerospace Engineering Cooperative Education Program at Kennedy Space Center. He joined Marshall Space Flight Center in 1980 as an engineer in the Shuttle Projects Office, and in 1987, was named manager of the Shuttle Program Planning and Management Systems Office. Following that, he served as the manager of the Solid Rocket Booster Project Office.

Jim served as the Deputy Director of Marshall's Science and Engineering Directorate and was later named Director of the center's Engineering Directorate. In 2001, he was selected to serve as Deputy Director of the Marshall Space Flight Center, and just two years later, he returned to Florida and was named the Deputy Director of the Kennedy Space Center. In 2003, he became the eighth Director of the Kennedy Space Center.

Jim has received numerous awards during his illustrious career in our Nation's Space Program, including the National Space Club's Astronautics Engineer of the Year Award, the Marshall Space Flight Center Leadership Award, the Astronaut's own Silver Snoopy Award, NASA's Distinguished Service Medal, the Presidential Rank Meritorious and Distinguished Service Awards, and the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal. Most recently, he received the Dr. Kurt H. Debus Award from the National Space Club's Florida Committee.

Jim oversaw the critical job of ensuring a safe ``Return to Flight'' of the Shuttle Program as well as the resumption of International Space Station construction. I watched with pride last July 4th as Jim's team at Kennedy Space Center performed a successful launch of Space Shuttle Discovery. This particular launch was a fitting tribute to Kennedy Space Center and a wonderful cap to Jim Kennedy's career, as it proved that both our nation's Space Shuttle Program and the International Space Station Program were once again on firm footing. Jim Kennedy's leadership, and the fine professionals at KSC, gave our country renewed confidence that the goals of our Space Program would be realized. Because of the leadership and hard work of Jim Kennedy, America's premier space launch center proved that it is up to the task. Jim Kennedy's leadership has helped ensure our Space Program is on track for completion of the remaining Shuttle missions and continue the Manned Space Program which will include the return of Americans to the surface of the Moon, then Mars and beyond.

I should also mention that, as with most successful leaders, Jim Kennedy was supported in his NASA career by a devoted family that includes his wife, Bernadette, as well as his two grown children, Jeff and Jamie. I would like to extend our country's appreciation for the sacrifices they made during Jim's years with our Nation's space program.

Much of Jim Kennedy's career was devoted to launching mankind's most sophisticated and complex inventions. The Space Shuttles are truly the jewels of American technological prowess. Each successful launch overseen by Jim Kennedy lifted the spirits of all Americans and underlined our identity as the world's leading space faring Nation. As a representative from the Space Coast, I share deeply in this sense of pride in the promise of Kennedy Space Center and NASA and in Jim Kennedy's devoted service to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this bill.

If this bill becomes law, it will establish a new precedent for our government. For the first time, we will be funding researchers who are knowingly destroying human embryos in the course of their research, and that is really what this debate is essentially about.

This Congress enacted legislation over 10 years ago, and President Bill Clinton signed it, specifying that no Federal funds will be used for research that involves the destruction of a human embryo. This piece of legislation takes us down a path that overturns that.

Now, the advocates for this legislation assert that this is necessary because of the great potential of embryonic stem cells, and I rise essentially as a physician and a concerned American to challenge that notion based on

my understanding of embryonic stem cells. And by the way, we have heard it said repeatedly that embryonic stem cells have only been studied for 8 years. They have been studied for 25 years in the mouse. Eight years in the human model, but 25 years in the mouse.

All embryonic stem cells form tumors. All of them. Indeed, if you are in the research lab, that is how you determine you actually have an embryonic stem cell. You put it in an animal, and it forms a tumor called a teratoma.

They have never been shown not only to be really good and therapeutic, but they have never been shown to be safe. Before an embryonic stem cell therapy could ever be approved by the FDA, it would have been to be shown to be both effective, which embryonic stem cells have never been shown to be; and as well, safe, and the very nature of embryonic stem cells renders them unsafe.

So why is this such a critical debate? Why is this such an important debate? It is simply because this is not necessary and it is morally wrong. It is morally wrong because it takes us down a path where we will be saying certain forms of human life are expendable and can be discarded. And it is totally unnecessary, because they have never been shown to be therapeutically useful.

Furthermore, we were just amazed to discover that in the amniotic fluid are cells that behave just like these embryonic stem cells, but they don't form tumors. It is not ethically controversial to use them, and they have all the potential that embryonic stem cells have been shown to have in the lab.

So I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. Support the President of the United States, and just remember, just remember, that there are absolutely no restrictions on this research in the private sector. This is all about Federal dollars and how they are going to be used.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to recommit, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote for it. Why are we offering this motion to recommit? It is really very, very simple. This institution, the House of Representatives, is previously on multiple occasions on record being in opposition to human cloning, both human cloning for the purpose of creating a baby and human cloning for the purpose of creating embryos for research purposes.

Why do we bring this up? Why do we offer this motion to recommit in its current form? Well, it is very, very simple. Some of the labs that are going to get the money under this bill are currently pursuing an agenda of human cloning. I would encourage you all to go to the Harvard medical school Web site. You can pull this down. I have it right here. I would be very interested to share it with any of my colleagues how they are pursuing, through the process that they refer to as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, which is human cloning, an agenda to create disease-specific cell lines for embryonic stem cells. That is their agenda through the process of cloning.

Now, we are on record wanting to make it illegal, make it criminal, to do human cloning. This motion to recommit doesn't do that. This says something much milder than that, and this is why I think most people in this body should be very, very comfortable with this motion to recommit. It simply says, we don't want to be using Federal dollars in a lab that is engaging in human cloning. If we can't get through the Senate a ban, a total ban on human cloning, at least let's make sure that, as we move forward in this brave new world of using human embryos in research and discarding them, that at least we are not incentivizing cloning.

I commend my colleague from Texas and the staff for developing this motion to recommit, and I would just again remind all of my colleagues, we are out of step with the civilized world. Canada, France, Germany and Italy have all completely banned embryo cloning. All the other G-8 countries have serious restrictions on it. This is a restriction on human cloning, a simple, mild restriction that we won't allow Federal dollars to be going to a lab that is doing cloning.