Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, recently received an award from the American Foreign Service Association for constructive dissent that is intended to ``foster creativity and intellectual courage within the State Department bureaucracy.''

Last year, the winner was critical of the Iraq war.

Ambassador Evans' constructive dissent was calling the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottomans in 1915 genocide. Our national policy towards the 1915 events calls it a tragedy, but not genocide.

So Turkey was very upset, as were a number of ``very serious people'' at the State Department. And this award, intended to encourage dissent, was revoked.

Obviously, the State Department was concerned about upsetting our ally, Turkey, though the facts seem to support the ambassador here. The sad thing is that an award intended to encourage dissent has now reinforced the powers that be. It seems the State Department is okay with dissent from the policy of a Republican President in Iraq, but it opposes dissent from a policy that denies the truth.

So much for intellectual courage.

Mr. Speaker, the American people provide 22 percent of the U.N.'s budget, but the American people cannot impact what happens at the U.N.

For instance, the American people have no ability to force accountability in the billions stolen from the Oil-for-Food program. The American people have no way of objecting to the appointing of countries like Syria, Libya, North Korea and Cuba to the Human Rights Commission. The American people have no way of pressuring Kofi Annan to resign or force prosecutions of peacekeepers who raped the very people they were ordered to protect.

Today, the U.N. operates with little or no oversight from its member states. We have an opportunity to change that with H.R. 2745, which gives the American people the leveraging tool. By conditioning 50 percent of our U.N. dues to a series of reforms, the legislation would finally give the American people a voice on things like religious freedom, political oppression and abuses of power that have plagued the U.N. since its earliest days.

I urge support.

Mr. Speaker, a 10-year-old Knoxville, Tennessee child, Luke Whitson, and some of his friends chose to read the Bible to each other during recesses instead of playing on the jungle gym or kickball. Luke's principal was not amused. She put a stop on this terrible practice at once and told the students not to bring their Bibles to school again.

Now, we expect principals to protect kids from bullying and ensure a healthy learning environment. We do not expect them to dictate issues of faith or, worse, mandate a faith-free environment. However, this principal is a ground soldier in a national campaign to remove faith, even voluntary expressions of it, from publicly funded programs and facilities.

School children, all people, should have the right to read freely in their own free time, whether it is during recess at school or in the break room during lunch at work.

Our government buys and provides copies of the Koran and prayer rugs to terrorist prisoners at Gitmo. We expect our soldiers to honor a terrorist's right to worship freely, but will we stand for the right of an American child to do so as well? Sounds like somebody is paranoid.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the continued reports of rape, mutilation, killings, and racism from Darfur, Sudan. The African Union, the U.N., the international community all know what is happening there. Women are raped and men are killed.

Our government has called it genocide. The U.N. stopped short of using that term but has expressed concern. The fact is the extremist regime in Khartoum is engaging in an ethnic cleansing campaign, so- called Arab Muslims brutalizing and attacking so-called black Muslims. One 21-year-old Sudanese woman was attacked by a group of uniformed men who said, ``You are black people. We want to wipe you out.''

Madam Speaker, where is our outrage? Where is the outrage of the international community and the U.N.? We have no excuse because we know what is happening. The U.N. does not appear to have the ability to rally the public's popular support among its membership to act decisively because of a few powerful states undermining the process behind the scenes.

The real question is, does the international community care enough to go after the Sudanese government and its puppet militias? I wish I could say we do. People are suffering because of our inaction and inaction of the U.N. and the international community.

Mr. Speaker, the States should decide. Is that not what we heard in debate on gay marriage?

Well, that is what Nebraska did, with a constitutional amendment passed by their State legislature and approved by over 70 percent of their voters in a referendum. The State decided that the definition of marriage should be limited to one man and one woman, a definition that nearly everyone in this country agrees with.

But recently an activist Federal judge disagreed and the duly enacted law of the State, the decision of the State and its reelected representatives and voters, was overruled by an activist Federal court.

Does not sound like States deciding to me. On the contrary, it is exactly what many of us have said would happen, activist courts would erode the will of the people in States like Nebraska. The other side, the side screaming for States' rights just 10 months ago, has not said a word while Federal courts decide and impose their will of what marriage is on the States.

This is too far. We need to act. The Federal Marriage Protection Amendment will ensure that States decide this issue of critical importance. If the other side really believes their own rhetoric, they will back this amendment and fight for judges who allow the people and their elected representatives to debate and decide cultural issues.

Madam Speaker, government watchdogs seem to be popular these days. They claim to keep an eye on politicians to keep them honest. Political Money Line is gathering data that is available to the public on who is paying for congressional travel. That is a watchdog. It puts the truth out for the public and sounds a warning when there is a problem.

However, other so-called watchdogs are not watching out for the public; they are promoting their own political agenda. They are partisans. Four of the big ones, Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Public Citizen, and Campaign Legal Center all have deeply embedded partisan ties with the Democrats. Together, they have hired Democrat staffers and former Democrat public officials, and they have contributed millions to Democrats in elections. Together, they have launched an attack on their partisan rivals and their number one enemy, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

They do not care about the public. They care about power. They want it back. This has nothing to with watching out for the public, but everything to do with partisans deceiving the American people and trying to change the party in power.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Davis amendment, which year after year has been offered and defeated. When President Clinton allowed abortions in military facilities in the early 1990s, all military physicians, as well as many nurses and supporting personnel, refused to perform or assist in elective abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire civilians to do abortions. The current administration would not do this. But future administrations could. Therefore, if the Davis amendment were adopted, not only could taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, but resources could be used to search for, hire, and transport new personnel simply so that abortions could be performed.

Military treatment centers, which are dedicated to healing and nurturing life, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent human life, the child in the womb. The American working family should not be forced to fund the extremist health care agenda of this amendment. Vote ``no'' on the Davis amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am a big supporter of stem cell research. But I do not support the dissecting and destruction of living human embryos to do so.

Steve Johnson from Reading, Pennsylvania, agrees with me. A bicycle incident, an accident, he had 11 years ago replaced his bike with a wheelchair. He has heard that embryonic stem cells might help him walk again. For Steve, though, that is unacceptable, using embryos. The way that H.R. 810 would find those cells is through the destruction of IVF living embryos. He and his wife, Kate, adopted his daughter, Zara, as an embryo from an IVF clinic when she was just a frozen embryo. And H.R. 810 would have killed Zara as an embryo for her stem cells.

There are 20 others like this child here in town today--the ``snowflakes''--babies who developed from embryos given by their biological parents to a couple unable to conceive on their own. If H.R. 810 were law, there is a good chance they would not be here at all. They are living human embryos, and there are many of them that should be adopted, not dissected.

The sad thing is that Steve is more likely to be treated not with embryonic stem cell research but with stem cells from his own body. Adult stem cell treatments are helping people walk today, in 67 different diseases and treatments. The proponents of H.R. 810 can produce no such results. There are none for embryonic stem cells.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of adult stem cell research, characterized by the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Smith) bill, and oppose H.R. 810, the Castle legislation, that would propose Federal dollars for destroying human embryos for embryonic stem cell research.

I can illustrate the difference with these two binders. In this one binder there are 67 successful treatments using adult stem cells, and stem cells from cord blood, adult stem cells for treatment of diseases. They are all categorized here by diseases, successful treatments. From embryonic stem cell research: zero.

The simple fact of the matter is with the use of embryonic stem cells the only thing that you have today are dead embryos and dead laboratory rats with tumors. They have not worked. They do not work. With adult stem cells you have live patients with treatments. This is the ethical way to go. This is what we should support.

Mr. Speaker, we are all different. We are all different because we each have our own DNA. The ordering of genes in our body makes us unique. We have the color of our hair, skin, eyes, teeth, because of DNA. And each person has his or her own set of DNA, and that makes us each unique. Each and every person is valuable.

I am a supporter of ethical stem cell research, Mr. Speaker. I do not support the dissecting and destruction of living human embryos to harvest stem cells for the purpose of experimentation and research, and that is because each of these living human embryos has its own genetic makeup, its own DNA.

It is not animal DNA. It is not plant DNA. It is human genetic code, human DNA. The stuff that sets each person apart is there in this tiny little life that H.R. 810 would destroy. Each unique and distinct, but frozen.

Early today I met with a man, Steve Johnson, from Reading, Pennsylvania, who is in Washington for this debate. Steve was in a bicycle accident 11 years ago and his bike was replaced with a wheelchair, and today Steve is a paraplegic. And he has heard the promises made that embryonic stem cell research might help him walk again. For Steve, though, that is unacceptable. And so Steve and his wife, Kate, adopted a little girl. Here are three little snowflake babies.

He adopted little Zara when she was just a frozen embryo, stored at an IVF clinic. She was a leftover embryo that proponents of this bill would destroy for her cells. If someone had dissected her for embryonic stem cell research, she would not be here today. But she is here today with 21 other little snowflake children. Steve would not have his daughter because scientists want a laboratory experiment.

Zara is living proof that advocates of H.R. 810 are wrong on this issue. What they do not admit is that Steve Johnson's paralysis is more likely to be reversed using adult stem cells. How do we know that? Because recently, we learned that cells taken from a person's nose, olfactory cells, are helping people walk again. Cells taken from cord blood are helping people walk again, today.

Embryonic stem cells, no, not helping people walk again. They might say there is hope. There is no proof.

I would like to challenge the other side to put up in front of a camera one person treated for spinal cord injury with embryonic stem cells. You cannot, can you? We can. Hwang Mi-Soon, Susan Fajt.

How about Parkinson's? You cannot. We can. Dennis Turner. How about cancer? Leukemia? Sickle cell? You cannot.

Adult stem cells are treating human patients today for the very diseases that the proponents of this bill claim might hopefully one day be treated through the destruction of living human embryos.

The human being is in all stages of development, or disability, uniquely distinct and infinitely valuable.

House Resolution 810 is a tragic betrayal of that value.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, throughout her career, Judge Priscilla Owen has received support from across the ideological spectrum. In 2000 she was overwhelmingly reelected to a second term on the Texas Supreme Court, receiving 84 percent of the vote. Every major newspaper in Texas endorsed her for election.

Her popularity stems from her excellence on the bench and in private practice where she distinguished herself as a litigator after earning the highest score in the State on the Texas bar exam in 1977.

On May 9, 2001, Priscilla Owen was nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court. The nomination is supported by three former Democrat judges on the Texas Supreme Court, a bipartisan group of 15 past presidents of the State Bar of Texas. However, on five separate occasions in the U.S. Senate, Democrats succeeded in blocking the vote on the floor, even though she has the votes to be confirmed, because of partisanship and politics.

Today political maneuverings stand and Judge Owen's courtroom stands empty. Senate Democrats are holding qualified judges hostage to their extremist views and disrupting the constitutional process. That is wrong, unprecedented, and it should stop.

Madam Speaker, ``Newsweek'' last night finally retracted a story that had deadly consequences. The incident underscores how high the stakes are for the news media. There is a prestige for organizations to get the story first. But that prestige often trumps factual reporting of issues. And the ``gotcha'' factor is often the motivation for running stories that are not as well researched as they could or should be. It is the ``gotcha'' bias that leads to shoddy reporting. This may be fine when they are covering the Michael Jackson case.

The problem with the War on Terror reporting is that terrorists are watching. When stories are reported here that fit their PR plan, terrorists use them to incite violence and hatred around the world. In the very next news cycle, their response can be heard. That means that mistakes are very costly and the damage done is outrageous.

In this case ``Newsweek's'' mistake cost the lives of 17 people in riots in Afghanistan and set back the cause of democracy there. This is inexcusable and irresponsible. And while it is good that Newsweek issued a correction, they should lead the way in setting a higher standard of reporting in the first place, particularly when we are talking life and death, war and peace.

Mr. Speaker, in the coming weeks, some will say that they only want to use Federal funds to destroy human embryos stored in IVF clinics for stem cell research. This is a skilled use of the bait-and- switch tactic.

First, these embryos are not primed for research; they are primed for adoption. Eighty-one embryos have been adopted today with dozens more on the way, called ``snowflake adoptions.'' Researchers who support embryonic stem cell research acknowledge that these IVF embryos will not provide near the desired type or number of stem cell lines demanded by the biotech industry and admit that they will not be genetically diverse. In order to get that sample and overcome that rejection, they will need to clone human embryos. Advocates have admitted as much on this floor in the Chamber.

The ultimate goal of researchers is free and unfettered access to Federal dollars to create, clone and destroy human embryos for lab experiments. Congress should instead focus on supporting adult stem cell research, which has been proven to work successfully, is not morally controversial, and holds true promise for disease victims. We should not kill to harvest an experiment.

Mr. Speaker, some time this summer, the House will vote on a bill to allow Federal funds to be used to destroy embryos stored at IVF clinics in order to harvest their stem cells. Those voting for this legislation will say that these are leftover embryos. They will say they are going to be killed anyway.

Well, they are wrong. Only 2.8 percent of embryos in IVF clinics have been set aside for research; the rest are destined for implantation or adoption.

But, we do not need to kill these embryos to do stem cell research. Stem cells can be taken from many adult sources: fatty tissue, spleen, liver, sinus, bone marrow, just to name a few. These are called adult stem cells.

Adult stem cell research is currently treating 58 diseases successfully. Embryonic stem cell research is treating none: 58, adult stem cell; zero, embryonic stem cell. If there were no ethical alternative, which there is, if we applied ``they are going to die anyway'' rationale to other areas of research, it would justify such things as harvesting organs from death-row inmates and from terminally ill patients.

We should support adult stem cell research, not embryonic.

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of hard to see justice served in this Nation when our Federal bench has vacancies on it. That is why the President has put forward a number of highly qualified, highly skilled people to serve on the Federal bench.

However, Senate Democrats do not like these judges. They have conspired to block judges using the filibuster. That means a nominee requires the approval not of 51 Senators, which the Constitution requires, a majority; but 60 Senators, a supermajority.

So Republicans would like to restore the tradition of the Senate approving the President's judicial nominations by requiring an up-or- down vote. This is called the Constitutional Option, because it empowers Senators to vote on judicial nominees, up or down. The rule change will apply only to judicial nominees.

It actually has been used before by Democrats. In 1995, 19 currently serving Democratic Senators voted to end all filibusters, and Senator Robert Byrd has tried to amend use of the filibuster several times.

As long as there is a Senate, there will be a filibuster and other delaying tactics available to thwart the majority and legislation. But as long as the Constitution directs the Senate to vote on judicial nominees, the filibuster will not stand in the way.