Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the purpose of this amendment. It is designed to restrict information used by the President's Council of Economic Advisers.

Just because a Member does not like the findings of an independent study does not mean we should be trying to prevent the White House from using that information. What kind of precedent would this set? Where can Congress stop in restricting the President's Council of Economic Advisers and the executive branch from discussing the findings of independent studies? What other type of economic data will Members try to restrict then?

The $800 million figure that the gentleman from Ohio cites is from a 2003 Tufts University study. Is Tufts University no longer able to provide information to this government with studies? Which university will be next? Harvard University? Are they good enough? Princeton? It seems to me Tufts University is a good source of independent information.

This information was put together independently. It was not created out of thin air. It was not created by the White House. The fact is this amount of money that pharmaceutical companies spend on R&D is considerable. They spend enormous resources on research and development. In 2003, pharmaceutical companies spent an estimated $33.2 billion on research and development. In the same year, the budget for the entire NIH, the entire budget for the National Institutes of Health, their operating budget was $27 billion, less than what the industry had spent on R&D alone.

Over the past 10 years, pharmaceutical research companies, scientists and researchers have earned an average of 32 new drug approvals a year. In 2003, a total of 35 new drugs, including 21 new molecular entities and 14 new biologics, were approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

These were important products. These are products used to prevent or treat conditions like Alzheimer's, cancer, HIV infection, asthma, pneumonia, psoriasis, and other infectious diseases. The President's advisers should not be censored while talking about this world-leading American industry and the amount of money that they spend on research and development.

I urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, it seems that the sponsors of this amendment are intent on impugning the integrity of Tufts University, and that is unfortunate. And they are also intent on censoring the White House and the Council of Economic Advisers of what they can say. Does the gentleman believe that we should apply this message to a President from his party as well? Should the President be unable to reference independent studies on global warming or international labor issues or the minimum wage, or is this really just partisan censorship?

The gentleman uses rhetoric and figures that I may not agree with, but I certainly do not disagree with his right to say it.

This is a bad amendment. I urge its defeat.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I want to thank the chairman for his very good work on this bill. It is an excellent bill. I know they put an enormous amount of work into it, and I rise in support of this amendment because I think we can make it even better; and that is why I am joining the gentleman from New York in offering this amendment, the Weiner/Ferguson amendment; and I rise in strong support of the amendment.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia continues to be one of the largest financers of terrorism in the world. And the fact that this bill provides American dollars to this country for U.S.-subsidized military training is nothing short of astounding.

Our own government's reports chronicle Saudi Arabia's continuing human rights abuses, ongoing financing of terrorist groups, and exporting of terrorist ideologies. It is amazing that we are looking to Saudi Arabia, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and giving them money out of our legislation. Now is not the time to reduce pressure on Saudi Arabia. Instead of rewarding the Saudi Government for financing terrorism and harboring terrorists, we should be holding them accountable for well-documented human rights abuses and terrorist connections.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Weiner/Ferguson amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) for his leadership in delivering a comprehensive and bipartisan appropriations bill to the floor today. He has taken the responsibility as chairman of the subcommittee very seriously. He has been to New Jersey, to our home State. He has seen the channel deepening project, and he takes a real interest in the projects found in his bill, and I thank him very much for his leadership.

On a more personal note, I also want to thank the chairman for supporting the Green Brook Flood Control Project, which is in my district in New Jersey. My constituents in New Jersey thank him for his commitment to this project.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). For more than 5 years, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, has been a champion for the Green Brook Flood Control Project. He deserves significant credit for its success and the thanks of thousands of residents whose safety and livelihood in our area of New Jersey are very much at stake with the success of this project.

The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and every member of the Committee on Appropriations has a considerable task and responsibility of prioritizing local projects. There are no easy decisions, particularly in a difficult and a tight budget year like this year. The Green Brook Flood Control Project is saving homes and businesses and lives. It is equally vital that our Senators from New Jersey take up the fight for this important project and finish the work that we have begun here in the House.

Again I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson), and I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for their compassion and their vision and their leadership and commitment to this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we will hear some of our colleagues talk about the empty promise of embryonic stem cell research. They will argue for research

that not only requires the destruction of human life, but to date, has also not yielded a single therapy.

What we in Congress should be advocating for is the continuing advancement of adult stem cell research, a true scientific success story, which has benefited thousands of Americans already.

Perhaps nowhere is this success more evident than in the advancement of cord-blood stem cells. A rich source of stem cells, umbilical cords are already treating patients. Cord-blood stem cells have already been used to treat thousands of patients and more than 67 different diseases, including leukemia, sickle cell anemia and lymphoma. The New York Blood Center's National cord-blood program alone has provided transplants to over 1,500 gravely ill children and adults.

And there is great promise for the future. Studies have shown that these cells have the capacity to change into other cell types, giving them potential to treat debilitating conditions such as Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury and diabetes.

The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act focuses government efforts on research with real promise, providing Federal funding to increase the number of cord-blood units available to match and treat patients.

The bill also takes on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, providing a national network that would link all the cord- blood banks participating in an inventory program into a search system, allowing transplant physicians to search for cord-blood and bone marrow matches through a single-access point.

It would also promote additional stem cell research for units not suitable for transplant. The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act advances true stem cell research, research with real promise, grounded in proven science; and it is ethically sound.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important and timely legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank both gentlemen for yielding me this time.

The debate over embryonic stem cell research is important because there are no more important issues that we deal with in this Chamber than when we debate life and death.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand here in this Chamber today, I am a human being. I am a man, an adult man. Sometime before I was a man, I was a teenager. Before that I was a child. And sometime before I was a child, I was a toddler. And before I was a toddler, I was an infant. And sometime before I was an infant, I was a fetus. And sometime before I was a fetus, I was an embryo. I did not look like I do today, but it was me. That embryo was me.

At some point in our history, every single person here was also an embryo. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), you were an embryo once. The other gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the committee; yes, sir, you too were an embryo once. The gentleman from Delaware, the sponsor of this bill, you were an embryo once. The gentlewoman from Colorado, you too were an embryo once. The gentleman from Michigan, you were an embryo once. Now, we did not look like we do today, but it did not mean it was not you.

A human embryo is a member of the human family. It has its own unique DNA. It is its own human entity. It is unique. It is irreplaceable, and it is a member of the species Homo sapiens. It is not just a bit of tissue. It is not just, as some have suggested, a couple of cells in a petri dish. It is human and it is alive. It might not look like you or me, but there was a time when you and I looked exactly like that embryo.

Today, we are debating embryonic stem cell research, a type of stem cell research in which a tiny member of the human family must die. That is not just my opinion; that is a scientific fact. The gentlewoman from Colorado would suggest that under this legislation Federal funds would not be used to destroy human life. That is simply false.

Those who conduct human embryonic stem cell research must destroy human life to do so. You cannot conduct embryonic stem cell research without destroying human life, and that is wrong. And it is certainly wrong to fund this unethical embryonic stem cell research using taxpayer money. And that is precisely what this legislation would do. It would use taxpayer money to fund research which destroys human life.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 5119 in Glen Gardner, New Jersey. Members of VFW Post 5119, which includes Hunterdon and Warren counties, are traveling to Washington this week to view the memorials along the National Mall, throughout the capital and in Virginia that represent so much of our nation's history.

These memorials are at once simple and compelling, powerful enough that in an instant an old man is transported back decades to when he was young and walked on the field of battle. The memorials are our own living reminder that generations of Americans fought, struggled and died to defend our Nation and its enduring principles of freedom and liberty.

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial along the National Mall is the most visited of all landmarks in Washington. The Marine Corps Memorial, also known as the Iwo Jima Memorial, honors Marines who have given their lives in defense of our country since 1775. Along Pennsylvania Avenue, between this Capitol and the White House, the Navy Memorial at the plaza honors the men and women who served in the Navy. The Korean War Memorial opened only 10 years ago, and the National World War II Memorial opened only last year. Across the Potomac River in Virginia, Arlington National Cemetery houses the most of sacred of our Nation's memorials--the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers.

There are a lot of memorials for the members of VFW Post 5119 to see, and for the rest of us, there's a lot for which we are grateful. The members of VFW Post 5119 honor each of us with their presence in our Nation's capital.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentlewoman from Florida for offering this legislation. I commend her, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.

We work so hard in the policies that we pass in this body. We work so hard in so many ways in this country today to try to help families to stay together. We try to encourage communication between parents and their kids. And that is exactly what this legislation is designed to do. It is designed to encourage parents and their children to have more conversations, to be communicating about some of life's most difficult and challenging circumstances and decisions that have to be made in families today.

We have young kids in our family, and time after time after time, kids come home from school with permission slips. They cannot do anything in school today without a permission slip. A school trip, being on a bus, participating in some activity. We cannot do anything in schools today, with young people today, without getting a permission slip from their parents. A child cannot get an aspirin in school without getting permission from their parents.

Yet with this legislation, we are simply suggesting and requiring that if someone is going to try to take a young child, a minor, a young woman, a girl, across State lines to evade a law that is designed to have parents and their children talking and communicating about some of the toughest things that families have to deal with, we are talking about an abortion procedure. We are talking about an invasive surgical procedure. It requires anesthesia. And we are saying that parents should not necessarily be involved in that decision? My gosh, it betrays common sense. It betrays norms for decency and common sense. We are talking about an invasive surgical procedure that requires anesthesia, when we require a parent to be notified and to give consent for their child to have an aspirin or to ride on a bus or to go on a school trip; yet saying parents should not be involved necessarily when their child is going to have an invasive surgical procedure requiring anesthesia simply betrays common sense.

I certainly encourage and urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of National Tartan Day, which is celebrated every year on April 6.

National Tartan Day was created with the passage of Senate Resolution 155 on March 20, 1998. April 6th was chosen as the date because the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Declaration of Independence, was signed on April 6, 1320.

On March 9, 2005, the House of Representatives approved House Resolution 41, which expressed the sense of the House of Representatives that April 6 be established as National Tartan Day to recognize the outstanding achievements and contributions made by Scottish-Americans.

National Tartan Day is a time to remember the major role that Scottish Americans have

played in this country throughout the course of history. Almost half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were of Scottish descent, as were Governors in nine of the original 13 states.

Scottish Americans have made invaluable contributions to America in the fields of science, medicine, government, literature, media, and architecture. Today in America more than 200 organizations honor Scottish heritage in the United States.

On this day, let us remember the contributions Scottish-Americans have made to our country and the loyalty and commitment they have shown to the United States throughout the history of our nation.

Mr. Speaker, it was with heavy hearts and steady resolve that we came to the House chamber on Palm Sunday to pass S. 686, a carefully crafted bill with a singular purpose: To ensure that Terri Schiavo enjoys the same due process under the Constitution as any other citizen, and to guarantee that her right to life is fully protected.

This is an extraordinary situation, one that requires an extraordinary response. This is a life or death situation for this young woman. Terri's parents should have the chance to have her case heard by a Federal judge, and now they will. If we make an error, we should err on the side of life.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this issue. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his work on this important legislation. It is a pleasure to serve on the subcommittee, and I look forward to continued work in this Congress.

As a father of four young children, I am glad to see that the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act has once again come to the House floor and it is on its way to passage and signature by President Bush. While I ultimately believe that it is parents' responsibility to closely monitor what their children watch on television, it is difficult even for conscientious parents when programs that feature explicit language or other subject matter are shown during times when children are commonly watching television.

Often, parents are in the position of having to be reactive, hoping that children will not fall victim to offensive images and words on their TVs. Congress must act to ensure that the FCC has the tools that it needs to prevent offensive images in our living rooms, and I believe we have done so with this bill and this legislation.

It has been fueled by bipartisan desire to ensure that broadcasters take responsibility for what is transmitted over their airwaves. It is timely and it is completely appropriate considering what the American public and our families have witnessed recently over our airwaves. We have seen the public airwaves turned into a race to the bottom. Who can be more offensive? Who can be more vulgar? Who can push the envelope a little further than the next guy? Who can do whatever they can to create a stir and to draw increased ratings by creating a buzz in our society?

Do we not have something better to offer to American families and American children? It is difficult to argue that our society and our culture has not become more coarsened over the course of the last few decades. Let us try to stop the coarsening of our culture. Let us try to offer our families and our children something better, something more healthy, something more wholesome.

Can we not do better? I think we can. And I think it can begin by passing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I missed the vote on final passage of H.R. 418. Had I been able, I would have cast a vote in the affirmative as I am a strong proponent of the legislation and the goals it sets to achieve in reforming immigration policy in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and thank the gentleman from California as well for bringing this resolution to the floor. As a mark of respect for the victims of the Indian Ocean earthquake and the resulting tsunamis, I rise today in strong support of this resolution, as a cosponsor of this resolution, to honor the victims and to show my support for the humanitarian aid that our country is helping to provide with our partners from around the world. My prayers go out to the victims and their families who have been struck by this horrific tragedy, in particular, the large Asian and Indian community that resides in my district and, in fact, in all of our State of New Jersey.

Currently the estimated death toll is more than 140,000, in some cases over 150,000 people in South and Southeast Asia and East Africa. Between 3 and 5 million people throughout the affected region are lacking basic survival requirements, access to clean water, adequate shelter, food, sanitation and health care. Contaminated water sources in the affected countries have increased the risk of cholera, dysentery and malaria. Approximately 500,000 people have been displaced in Indonesia; more than 889,000 are displaced in Sri Lanka; 3.5 million people are affected in India; and more than 10,000 are injured in Thailand. In addition, between 15,000 and 30,000 may be affected in Somalia; 12,000 are displaced in Malaysia; and approximately 12,000 are displaced and 300,000 affected in the Maldives. These numbers are astounding. We must continue to do all that we can to help the millions who have been affected by this disaster. I strongly support all efforts by our country and the many others that are helping to meet the call for financial and voluntary relief. In fact, it is my hope to travel to the affected areas very soon to help do my part in seeing that the relief effort under way is a success.

Further, I would like to recognize the strong support of the American people. They have heeded the call to help their neighbors across the globe with a dedication and a determination that is an embodiment of our American spirit. We have banded together as a Nation and have continued our longstanding tradition of donating our considerable resources to our fellow men and women around the world. Again, let me thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for bringing this important resolution to the floor. I am proud to be a cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule and in favor of the intelligence reform legislation that the House will consider in a few moments.

Real reform of the Intelligence Community has been sorely needed, and building upon the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and through a thorough negotiation within Congress, we have a piece of legislation that I believe will go a long way toward making the people of our Nation safer. But I stand supporting this legislation knowing that more can be done to protect people in high-density, high-threat areas, like those in my home State of New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, the people of New Jersey deeply know the threat of terrorism. We have suffered through terrorist attacks and live daily with the possibility of future attacks. New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Nation, and at least a dozen sites within our State have been placed on the FBI's National Critical Infrastructure List.

The security of New York City and New Jersey is inextricably intertwined. Each year, 212 million vehicles traverse our States' tunnels, bridges and ferries, which must be protected by both New Jersey and New York.

Of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's three airports, the busiest by far is Newark International Airport.

Nearly 60 percent of all containerized maritime cargo processed by all North Atlantic ports goes through the Port of New York and New Jersey, and the vast majority of the cargo flows through New Jersey's docks onto our rails, through our tunnels and onto our roads.

Overall, 450,000 people commute from New Jersey to Lower Manhattan every day. And New Jersey and New York's first responders, our fire and EMT and police, have had a mutual-aid pact since the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, sharing experience and helping in times of need to protect our entire metropolitan area.

States like New Jersey are on the front lines of the fight for homeland security. It distresses me to hear that language that would have given States like New Jersey a more accurate allocation of funding, based on population and threat, was taken out by the bill's conferees in the conference committee.

I am looking forward to working in the next Congress with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who has led the fight for increased funding for high-threat, high-population areas by creating the Urban Area Security Initiative, and the over 170 Members that have voted in support of the UASI program earlier this year to push for a logical approach to allocating security dollars based on threat and population.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the members of New Jersey's Blood Services on their 30th Anniversary.

Since September 1973, New Jersey Blood Services has been serving the residents of New Jersey by collecting blood, holding blood drives and recruiting donors. NJBS has collected more than 2.2 million blood donations throughout its 30-year history, has developed important relationships with the American Red Cross and fostered several partnerships to provide health services throughout the State of New Jersey.

NJBS has pioneered efforts in mobile aphaeresis collections that have gained the attention of collection organizations throughout the country. The group also has piloted several programs to ensure the safety of both blood donors and recipients. Its efforts, combined with those of New Jersey-based businesses, have lead to tremendous success in local blood drives to provide for New Jerseys' blood needs.

Mr. Speaker, I commend all Americans who work hard to support the blood supply needs of the United States. These men and women work tirelessly to protect and preserve the lives and health of their fellow citizens.

I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating the New Jersey Blood Service for its 30 years of service to our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Cranford High School in Cranford, New Jersey, for being named a 2004 National School of Character at the Character Education Partnership's Annual Forum. Cranford is receiving this award in recognition of its exemplary work to encourage the ethical, social and academic development of its students through character education.

Suffering from growing disciplinary problems and other challenges 1990s, Cranford High School began to focus on educating its students on character qualities such as respect for others and responsibility. The school aimed to ``create a caring community through service learning by the year 2006.'' Through peer facilitation, a mentoring program, a focus on service education and character education, Cranford has reached its important goal ahead of schedule.

Cranford is one of only 10 schools in the country selected as a 2004 National School of Character. I commend all the students, teachers, administrators and parents of Cranford High School for their hard work and for setting such an excellent example for all those involved in educating the youth of America.