Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, this week I had to do the hardest thing that I have done since I have been in Congress. In our offices, in the rooms that we go into even for our hearings, the images of the war are on the TV. We have seen them now day after day. But this week those images became very personal to me. I received word that one of my constituents, Randy Rehn, from Longmont, Colorado, a young man serving his country in Iraq, lost his life. When I got the news, I wanted to call Randy's family and offer my sympathy. And when Randy's mother answered the phone, I got a lump in my throat that would not go away. I have a son about that age, and I thought of what his mother was feeling at that time, and as I talked to her, she told me that just 2 short years ago she lost Randy's father to cancer and so she was facing this crisis without him, but she said she was very thankful that her other children were there with her and were supporting her.

When we think about these losses, this war becomes very real to us. As I talked on to Randy's mother, she told me that he had a little daughter who is less than 1 year old. And tonight I would like to speak to little Megan, and I would like to say some things to her that will mean something to her when she is older and she can read this and she can understand. I would like to say to little Megan tonight, the precious little girl that will have to grow up without her father, that your daddy was serving his country and he was doing what needed to be done for little children just like you, Megan.

I want Megan to know that her dad is a hero. I want her to know that he was doing a job that was extremely hard to do, and he was doing it willingly, and I am sure he was well aware that there were sacrifices to be made. So tonight, Megan, I want to say to you that your daddy laid down his life for others, especially little children like you.

The Scripture says that our God will be a Father to the fatherless, and I just pray a special blessing on your little life, Megan, that God will bless you and your family, and I want you to always remember that your daddy was a hero and we love our soldiers who serve this country, who lay down their lives.

Mr. Chairman, it was not long ago we were standing in this place voicing our support of the troops; and when we were voicing that support, I think some of the most poignant remarks came from the soldiers in our midst.

It is hard to imagine what it is like being in the middle of a war for those that have not done it like myself. However, the sponsor of this amendment has been there. He has had the experience of being a soldier in a very perilous situation, and I think today that the sponsor of this amendment is putting himself in the place of the soldiers that are serving us in this conflict right now.

We have not forgotten what Turkey has done for us. My brother-in-law is a Korean War veteran, and we appreciate their friendship and their support through the years. But one of the qualities of friendship is steadfastness, being able to call on a friend in one's time of need. Turkey has failed us now in this present situation. In fact, Under Secretary Wolfowitz told the House of Representatives on March 27, ``There is no question if we had had a U.S. armored force in Iraq right now, the end of the war would have been closer.''

Every one of us in this Chamber, every citizen in the United States, wants this conflict to end as soon as possible. If Turkey had done what the United States had requested and needs, and given their full support and assistance, many lives would have been saved. The soldiers that my distinguished colleague identifies with that are in this conflict today, many of them would not have been killed.

I find it offensive that we would say to the families of those soldiers that have been lost, we are going to reward Turkey's behavior by giving them $1 billion in aid today. I think there are consequences when nations take action that harm our soldiers, and I would ask that we support this amendment that is given by the heart of a soldier.

Mr. Chairman, whenever there are problems such as this $64 million shortfall, we need to have clear answers and a remedy for such a problem. I am definitely in support of the Hoekstra amendment because I do not believe that it is appropriate at this time for us to do this $64 million bailout when we do not have even an explanation as to why it exists.

When we look at current law, it explicitly states: ``The corporation may not approve positions as approved national service positions for a fiscal year in excess of the number of such positions for which the corporation has sufficient available funds in the national service trust for that fiscal year.''

We are looking at a critical problem here, and it should not be addressed in this way, in this particular legislation. This funding to eliminate the shortfall should only be addressed after Congress can be assured that the tracking failures will not be an ongoing problem.

Again, I support the Hoekstra amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support the balanced budget alternative offered by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

The Toomey budget offers several key priorities for the Nation at this time of war and economic uncertainty.

The people of Colorado sent me here to rein in out-of-control government spending, to cut taxes, and to get government off their backs. Instead of spending the people's money like there is no tomorrow, we ought to provide real leadership and real solutions to demonstrate responsible fiscal discipline.

Mr. Chairman, just as it is our duty to protect American families from cowardly acts of terrorism, it is also our duty to protect the well-being of American families by balancing the budget to grow the American economy. It is our duty to protect the people's wallets by allowing taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. I do not want to mortgage the future of working families because we cannot say no to a government that is far too big and spends far too much. The American people will be proud of the Toomey budget because it keeps President Bush's tax cuts intact, while balancing the budget in a realistic 4-year time frame.

I ask my fellow Members of Congress to stand up and to do the right thing for America. Let us not shirk our responsibilities to future generations. Please join me in supporting the Toomey budget amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I sat last night in front of the TV, I could not take my eyes off of the images that I was seeing because, as a mother, I was thinking of my son. The gentlemen know that a mother's love is different than a father's love.

As I sat there, I thought of my grandmother, who sent two young sons off to war. I thought of my uncle, who was missing in action for over 13 months; of how the family felt when they did not know whether he was dead or alive. I

thought of my brother-in-law, who served in Korea. I thought of him because that, as you know, is the forgotten war. I thought of my brother who served in Germany.

I thought of the heroes among us in this Chamber, the veterans that we love and we honor. I thought of when I first shook the hand of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). When I found out why his hand was crippled, I thought of how I wanted to kiss his hand and honor him.

Tonight, with a mother's heart, I want to say, God bless each one of the young men and women who are serving us. God bless their families that have made the sacrifice. When we are away from our loved ones, we want to hold them; and we are holding them in our hearts.

Today I got an e-mail from John, and it touched me. Let me just share it with you:

``Hey, everyone, I just wanted to drop an e-mail to you to let you know I am doing great and that I am safe and sound. Here on the ship, the spirits are high. Everyone is going about their business like we do every day. Everyone here is united in the spirit of what we are doing. It gives us a sense of how important our job really is. All the late hours, all the things we put up with, are now justified.

``Just wanted to give you a quick update and thank you for your thoughts and your prayers.''

Tonight my thoughts and prayers are with our Commander in Chief. I pray that the Lord would give him wisdom. I pray for the team that he has surrounded himself with. I pray for the families whose young people are serving.

I want to give a clear message to every one of those young men and young women: never again in this Nation should we tell anyone who is serving that we do not appreciate what they have done, because we appreciate every one of them. We love them and we hold them in our hearts tonight. God willing they will come home so we can hold them in our arms again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act. The passage of this bill is of utmost urgency as scientists in this country and around the world are making dangerous advances towards the creation of a cloned human being.

The science of human cloning may be difficult to explain and to understand to those of us who are not scientists, but its immorality is not without question. You do not have to be a scientist to know this is wrong. Whether produced for the intention of human reproduction or for the purpose of medical research, the fact remains the same: human cloning is simply wrong. It invariably requires the creation and killing of numerous human lives in the effort to produce either cloned cells for the purpose of research or cloned human beings.

Numerous ethical questions arise. Who, for example, would be the parents of a cloned human being? What rights would they have? And what about the potential to create human-animal hybrids through the transferring of human nuclear material into animal eggs? If we open the door to human cloning, these ethical problems will be unavoidable. Additionally, cloning cheapens all human life by making it a commodity, an object to tinker with, to alter, to change to a scientist's preset specifications. Manipulating the genetic outcomes of human reproduction render certain people desirable and others not. How then will society view these people determined less desirable? Are they of less human value?

In fact, if we do not enact a ban on human cloning, these situations I have described are just a few of the scenarios we will face in the near future. As one of the Nation's leading bioethicists, Dr. Leon Kass, has said, ``We are compelled to decide nothing less than whether human procreation is going to remain human, whether children are going to be made to order rather than begotten, and whether we wish to say yes in principle to the road that leads to the dehumanized hell of `Brave New World.' ''

The American people have spoken loud and clear on their view on this issue, as has the scientific community, our President, and this body of Congress last year. The national consensus is evident. Human cloning for any reason, whether for research or reproduction, should be prohibited.

Please join me in voting ``yes'' on the Weldon-Stupak bill and ``no'' on the Greenwood substitute.

National Right to Life

Committee, Inc.,

February 10, 2003.

Congress Resumes Action on Human Cloning Legislation this Week, As Supporters of Cloning Human Embryos Try to Fool Lawmakers, Journalists,

and the Public with Deceptive ``Egg-Speak''

introduction

Congress is renewing consideration of whether to ban all

human cloning, as a number of other major nations have

already done. On Wednesday, February 12, the House Judiciary

Committee will act on the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534). This

bill, which is backed by President Bush, would ban the

creation of human embryos by cloning. In the Senate, the same

policy is embodied in the Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245).

Those who favor cloning human embryos are proposing

competing legislation that would allow the mass cloning of

human embryos to be killed in research, but attempt to ban

implantation of such an embryo in a womb. In the House, we

expect that this ``clone and kill'' approach will be advanced

by Rep. Jim Greeenwood (R-Pa.), who offered such a proposal

in 2001. In the Senate, a cloning-embryos-for-research bill

has been introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dianne

Feinstein (D-Ca.), and others as S. 303.

In recent days, a number of news outlets have transmitted

inaccurate reports about what these competing bills would

each allow and forbid--reports that obscure what the argument

is really about. These points of confusion are discussed in

more detail below.

president bush's position

President Bush has repeatedly called on Congress to ban all

human cloning (i.e., to ban the cloning of human embryos). In

remarks on January 22, the President said, ``I also urge the

Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not create life to

destroy life. Human beings are not research material to be

used in a cruel and reckless experiment.'' In his January 28

State of the Union

speech, the President said, ``Because no human life should be

started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to

set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all

human cloning.'' In a speech on human cloning last year,

President Bush warned that unless such legislation is

enacted, human ``embryo farms'' will be established in the

United States. (See www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/ print/2002410-4.html)

the situation in congress

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up the

Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534) on Wednesday, February 12, at

10:15 a.m., at 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. Once the

committee completes its work, the full House could take up

the bill at any time. H.R. 534 is nearly identical to the

measure that passed the House on July 31, 2001, by lopsided

bipartisan vote of 265-162 (roll call no. 304). When the

House considered the issue on that occasion, it decisively

rejected (249-178) a substitute amendment, the Greenwood-

Deutsch Amendment, that would have allowed the cloning of

human embryos for research (roll call no. 302)

The Senate companion to the Weldon-Stupak bill, the

Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245), currently has 26

cosponsors. A radically different measure, the Hatch-

Feinstein bill (S. 303), has only eight cosponsors, but it

has considerable additional support, mostly among Senate

Democrats.

The Brownback-Landrieu bill has been referred to the

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP),

which is chaired by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who was a

cosponsor of the bill in the 107th Congress. The Hatch-

Feinstein bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary

Committee, which Hatch chairs. Whatever happens in these

committees, the full Senate ultimately will vote on both of

these diametrically conflicting approaches.

The recently selected Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist

(R-Tn.), said in a January 12 interview on Fox News Sunday,

``I am opposed to any time that you create an embryo itself

with the purpose being destruction, and that would include

the so-called research cloning. And remember, research

cloning is just that, it's experimental. There's been no

demonstrated benefit of that to date, so I don't think you

ought to destroy life. . .''

The key differences between the two bills are discussed

below. In many recent news media reports on human cloning

issues, the differences have been mischaracterized, and the

specific activities that each bill would allow and prohibit

have been widely misunderstood.

misconceptions and facts

Misconception: The Brownback-Landrieu/Weldon-Stupak

legislation prohibits cloning of human ``cells,'' while the

Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow cloning of ``cells.''

Reality: The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 245) and the

Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 534)-- like their predecessors in

the 107th Congress--explicitly allow ``the use of nuclear

transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules,

DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs,

plants, or animals other than humans.'' [Sec. 2 of the

bill, at (d) in H.R. 534 and at (e) in S. 245; boldface

added for emphasis] Thus, the methods currently used to

``clone'' new skin, for example, or to ``clone'' DNA, are

perfectly okay under the Brownback-Landrieu bill.

Moreover, any cloning method that would produce stem cells

without first producing and killing a human embryo--as

some researchers have claimed that they eventually will be

able to do--is explicitly permitted by this language. In

addition, the Brownback-Landrieu and Weldon-Stupak bills

place no restrictions on research of any kind on human ova

(``eggs'').

In short, the Brownback/Weldon legislation and the Hatch-

Feinstein legislation are alike in that they would both

permit cloning involving merely eggs, cells, or tissues, but

they differ on one profound issue: The Hatch-Feinstein/

Greenwood proposals would allow the use of the somatic cell

nuclear transfer (SCNT) process to clone human embryos, and

the Brownback/Weldon legislation would forbid the use of SCNT

to clone human embryos.

Verbiage by supporters of ``research cloning'' about

``eggs'' and ``cells'' is intended to conceal what the

argument is really about: whether it should be permitted to

clone human embryos.

Misconception: So-called ``therapeutic cloning'' does not

involve creating human embryos.

Fact: That SCNT using human genetic material will create a

developing embryo of the species Homo sapiens is something

that authorities on all sides agreed on until sometime in

2001, when some of the pro-cloning forces decided to try to

obscure this fact for political purposes. Among those who

clearly affirmed that SCNT will create human embryos were the

bioethics panels of both Presidents Clinton and Bush, the

embryo research panel at NIH, and the chief cloning

researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts.

Some samples of such statements, which pre-date the current

disinformation campaign, are posted here: www.nrlc.org/ Killing_Embryos/factsheetembryo.html.

The cite just one example here, a group of scientists,

ethicists, and biotechnology executives advocating so-called

``therapeutic cloning'' and use of human embryos for

research--Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania,

Lee Silver of Princeton University, Ronald Green of Dartmouth

University, and Michael West, Robert Lanza, and Jose Cibelli

of Advanced Cell Technology--wrote in the December 27, 2000

issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association,

``CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, another

term for ``therapeutic cloning''] requires the deliberate

creation and disaggregation of a human embryo.'' They also

wrote, ``. . . because therapeutic cloning requires the

creation and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage

embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions.''

In its 2002 report on human cloning, the President's

Council on Bioethics, although divided on policy

recommendations, provided without dissent recommendations

regarding the use of honest terminology in this crucial

public policy debate, including acknowledging that successful

SCNT will create human embryos. The Council said, ``The

product of `SCNT' is not only an embryo; it is also a clone,

genetically virtually identical to the individual that was

the source of the transferred nucleus, hence an embryonic

clone of the donor.''

The Council recommended use of the terms ``cloning for

biomedical research'' and ``cloning to produce children'' to

distinguish between two of the purposes for which human

embryos might be cloned. (``Cloning for research'' and

``cloning for birth'' convey pretty much the same thing.) The

Council's discussion on accurate and neutral terminology is

here: www.bioethics.gov/cloningreport/terminology.html.

The phrase ``reproductive cloning'' is misleading, because

whenever somatic cell nuclear transfer produces a developing

embryo, ``reproduction'' has occurred. The term ``therapeutic

cloning'' is misleading, because no therapies have been

demonstrated using cloned embryos (even in animals, as

discussed below), and the process is certainly not

``therapeutic'' for the human embryo who is dissected--which

is what the argument is about.

Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would allow

research only on ``unfertilized eggs up to 14 days.''

Reality: As can be confirmed by reference to any biology

text or even any decent dictionary, a human ovum or ``egg''

is, by definition, a single cell. Moreover, it is a very

unusual cell--a gamete cell, which means it has only 23

chromosomes. An ovum has no sex.

As discussed above, once one has a complete nucleus from

any species that is activated (whether by sexual

fertilization or by asexual somatic cell nuclear transfer,

SCNT) and developing, then one has a developing embryo of

that species (sheep, cow, Homo sapiens, etc). There is no

such thing in biology or in any dictionary as a human ``egg''

or ``egg cell'' that has 46 chromosomes, is either male or

female, and is five days old (consisting of several hundred

cells) or even 14 days old (consisting of thousands of

cells). In short, calling a five-day-old or a two-week-old

human embryo an ``egg'' is an attempt to deceive the public

regarding what the policy argument is really about. We submit

that this is not an effort in which responsible journalists

should enlist.

The actual text of the Hatch-Feinstein bill coins the term

``unfertilized blastocyst.'' But ``blastocyst'' is simply a

technical term for an embryo at an early stage of

development. As for ``unfertilized,'' this is just another

word trick aimed at the gullible. Of course human embryos

produced by cloning will be ``unfertilized,'' because that is

what cloning is: asexual reproduction--no sperm. Every cloned

mammal in the world was unfertilized from the one-

celled embryo stage, and every one of them will be

unfertilized on the day they die. If a human embryo

created by cloning instead of fertilization is implanted

in a womb, is born, and lives to be eighty, she will still

be unfertilized.

Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill is a compromise

that would accomplish what almost everyone agrees on, banning

``reproductive cloning.''

Reality: Far from representing ``common ground,'' the

Hatch-Feinstein bill represents a policy disfavored by most

Americans and strongly opposed by the Bush Administration. It

will not become law. But that does not bother many of its

backers, such as the biotechnology industry lobby, because

the primary purpose of the Hatch-Feinstein bill is to impede

enactment of the real ban on human cloning, by providing

political cover for lawmakers who favor allowing the creation

of human embryos for research.

Notwithstanding the marketing efforts of the biotechnology

industry lobby and its allies, the Hatch-Feinstein bill or

the Greenwood amendment would enact a policy that is far from

a consensus position--indeed, a policy that the substantial

majority of Americans oppose. A Gallup poll in May 2002 found

that 61 percent of the American people opposed ``cloning of

human embryos for use in medical research'' (34 percent

approved), which is precisely what the Hatch-Feinstein bill

is crafted to allow and indeed encourage. In other polls,

substantially higher numbers are opposed when it is explained

that the human embryos will die in the research.

The Hatch-Feinstein bill is not a partial solution or a

middle ground. Rather, it is a step in the wrong direction.

The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give a green light to the

establishment of human embryo farms.

The ``clone and kill'' approach has already been

emphatically rejected by the Bush Administration and by the

House of Representatives (in 2001). Secretary of Health and

Human Services Tommy Thompson last year sent a letter to

Senator Brownback warning that such a bill would face a

presidential veto. Thompson wrote, ``The President does not

believe that `reproductive' and `research cloning should be

treated differently, given that they both require the

creation, exploitation, and destruction of human embryos . .

. the Administration could not support any measure that

purported to ban `reproductive' cloning while authorizing

research cloning, and I would recommend to the President that

he veto such a bill.'' (See www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/ ThompsontoBrownback.pdf).

The Hatch-Feinstein bill would give federal law enforcement

agencies responsibility for trying to enforce a ban on

implanting a cloned embryo in a womb--an approach that the

Justice Department in 2002 rejected as unworkable. The

Department explained that once large numbers of cloned human

embryos are created, there is no practical way to prevent

some of them from being implanted in wombs, and no remedy to

apply after that occurs. The testimony is posted here:

www.nrlc,org/killing_embryos/Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf.

Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein bill would ``ban human

cloning'' or ``ban the cloning of human beings.''

Reality: The Hatch-Feinstein bill does not ban ``human

cloning.'' It bans implanting a cloned human embryo ``into a

uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus'' (the latter

term is not defined), an act to which criminal penalties are

attached. It also attempts to impose a rule against allowing

a cloned human embryo (a so-called ``unfertilized

blastocyst'') to develop past 14 days of age (not counting

time frozen). Violations of this ``14-day rule'' are subject

to a civil fine of up to $250,000, and there is nothing in

the bill to prevent the threat of such a fine from being

applied even against a woman who carries an unborn cloned

human in utero, perhaps in an attempt to compel her to

procure an abortion.

It other words, the bill bans not ``human cloning,'' but

the survival of human clones, which is a very different

thing.

Any bill that permits cloning (somatic cell nuclear

transfer) with human nuclei does not ``ban human cloning,''

because such a bill allows the cloning of embryos of the

species Homo sapiens, and an embryo of the species Homo

sapiens is human (just as the cloned embryo that was later

born as Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, was always

a member of the species Ovis aries).

As to whether a cloned human embryo is to be regarded as a

``human being,'' we would think that journalists would want

to avoid blatantly taking sides on that question. A statement

that the Hatch-Feinstein bill ``bans the cloning of human

beings'' is certainly taking sides on the issue, because it

amounts to a declaration that a two-week-old embryo of the

species Homo sapiens is not a ``human being.'' (if not, what

species of being is it?)

It appears that President Bush is among those who recognize

cloned human embryos as human beings: in his January 22

statement, the President said, ``I also urge the Congress to

ban all human cloning. We must not create life to destroy

life. Human beings are not research material to be used in a

cruel and reckless experiment.'' [emphasis added]

The National Right to Life Committee believes that if a

cloned human being is born, she should have the same status

as other humans--but Senator Hatch and some others apparently

are not so sure. In a press release dated February 5, 2002,

Senator Hatch said, ``No doubt somewhere, some--such as the

Raelians--are trying to make a name for themselves and are

busy trying to apply the techniques that gave us Dolly the

Sheep to human beings. Frankly, I am not sure that human

being would even be the correct term for such an individual

heretofore unknown in nature.''

As Slate.com columnist Will Saletan commented (``Killing

Eve,'' December 31, 2002, http://slate.msn.com/id/2076199/),

``The first cloned baby--Eve or whoever comes after her--

won't be fertilized. If fertilization is a prerequisite to

humanity, as Hatch and Feinstein suggest, that baby will

never be human. You can press the pillow over her face and

walk away.'' (See also: www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/ arecloneshuman.html).

Misconception: Those who favor cloning for research would

never allow clones to develop past two weeks of age.

Reality: While the Hatch-Feinstein bill purports to

establish a two-week ``deadline'' for killing human clones,

there are substantial reasons to doubt that the biotechnology

industry would support such a limitation in a bill it

actually expected to become law. Already, some policymakers

are opening the door to ``fetus farming'' with human clones.

For example, the New Jersey legislature appears close to

giving final approval to a bill that would permit cloned

humans to be grown through any stage of fetal development,

even to birth, to obtain tissues for transplantation, as long

as they are not kept alive past the ``newborn'' stage. (SB

1909, as amended) Four members of the President's Council on

Bioethics wrote to Gov. James McGreevey to warn about the

bill's radical implications. (See www.nationalreview.com/ document/document020303c.asp).

Last year, researchers reported harvesting tissue from

cloned cows at six and eight weeks of fetal development, and

from cloned mice at the newborn stage. Both studies were

widely reported by the news media as breakthroughs for so-

called ``therapeutic cloning.'' Indeed, so far these are the

only two animal studies that have claimed to show

``therapeutic'' results from cloning.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the debt that all of us owe to the pioneering work of Susan B. Anthony. Susan B. Anthony is celebrated for her indispensable role in securing for women the right to vote and setting our Nation on the course towards recognizing the full equality and the dignity of women.

For Susan B. Anthony and her colleagues in the 19th century, promoting women's rights and promoting the dignity of women also meant opposing the evil of abortion. Out of respect for women recovering from abortion, I will refrain from using the term that Susan B. Anthony used to describe this procedure.

Susan B. Anthony was very insightful. She was one of our pioneering feminists, and she was also a strong pro-life advocate. It is instructive, Mr. Speaker, that Susan B. Anthony's opposition to abortion arose from her fight for equal rights for women, and that she saw no reason to separate the two.

Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate the 183rd anniversary of Susan B. Anthony's birthday and her human rights legacy, let us not separate the fight for equal rights for women from the fight for rights for all women, born and unborn.

Mr. Speaker, abortion is one of the greatest human rights issues that face us in our time. In honoring Susan B. Anthony, let us agree that being pro-life is inseparable from being pro-woman.

I thank the gentleman. I certainly yield to the gentleman in regard to the clinical objections that you have raised and with all of your knowledge of medical issues raised in regard to human cloning. However, I would like to rise to speak to the profound moral issues raised when we consider permitting medical science to create human life for the exclusive purpose of experimentation and destruction. I think that we need to look to human history. It is a truth of history that governments and mankind, if given the opportunity under the law, will trample on human life.

History is strewn with such examples. By legalizing human cloning for any reason, and many of them can sound altruistic even if they are false, we open a Pandora's box which could set our civilization on a similar course. It is morally wrong to create human life, even nascent human life, for the purpose of experimentation and destruction.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong objection and even my disgust at the recent selection of Libya as the Chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

It is shameful and it defies logic for Libya to sit in judgment of any nation on the critical issue of human rights. Libya is widely known to be a sponsor of international terrorism and an abuser of the most basic human rights.

The American people will never forget that the Libyan terrorists were the ones who hijacked Pan Am Flight 103 and murdered hundreds of innocent passengers.

Mr. Speaker, it is very evident that the only thing Libya knows about human rights is how to abuse them. Any notion that a terrorist nation such as Libya should lead any commission on human rights is absolutely repugnant.

Mr. Speaker, our President has made it very clear, the United Nations has some important decisions to make that will determine whether or not the United Nations will be relevant in the world community. One of these decisions is whether or not they will allow a terrorist state and a human rights abuser like Libya to chair the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

Mr. Speaker, we represent a country founded on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We should not, and I pray we will not, use taxpayers' dollars to support any commission chaired by a nation with such an outrageous record on human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in join me in condemning Libya's involvement with the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 13 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''