[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[Issue]
[Pages 10915-11104]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




[[Page 10915]]

                      SENATE--Tuesday, May 24, 2005

  The Senate met at 9:45 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable 
Lisa Murkowski, a Senator from the State of Alaska.
                                 ______
                                 

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray.
  Eternal spirit, You have said that the truth will set us free. We 
thank You that Your freedom leads to harmony and not discord, to 
consensus and not conflict. Liberate us from deceptions and distortions 
that caricature reality and misrepresent facts.
  Empower our Senators to find freedom in being as true to duty as the 
needle to the pole. Continue to teach them the fine art of conciliation 
and motivate them to continue to choose rational roads instead of 
emotional dead ends. Lift them above partisan rancor, and give them 
power to walk in Your light, to act in Your strength, to think in Your 
wisdom, to speak in Your truth, and to live in Your love. Inspire each 
of us to stand for right, even though the heavens fall.
  We pray in the Name of Him who is the truth. Amen.

                          ____________________




                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The Honorable Lisa Murkowski led the Pledge of Allegiance, as 
follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________




              APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to 
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Stevens).
  The legislative clerk read the following letter:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                        President pro tempore,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2005.
     To the Senate:
       Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable 
     Lisa Murkowski, a Senator from the State of Alaska, to 
     perform the duties of the Chair.
                                                      Ted Stevens,
                                            President pro tempore.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI thereupon assumed the Chair as Acting President pro 
tempore.

                          ____________________




                   RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________




                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, this morning we will continue debate in 
executive session on the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be a U.S. 
Circuit judge for the Fifth Circuit, and today at noon we will have a 
cloture vote with respect to the Owen nomination. In light of the 
events of yesterday, I expect cloture will be invoked this afternoon. 
If that cloture vote is successful, it is my desire to proceed 
expeditiously to vote on that confirmation. Members have had the 
opportunity to speak for over 40 hours, and hopefully we will not need 
much time following cloture.
  I am happy to yield to the Democratic leader. I have a brief 
statement commenting on the events of last night.

                          ____________________




                   RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.

                          ____________________




                              CLOTURE VOTE

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I think it would be better--I haven't had 
a chance to discuss this with the majority leader--to vitiate the vote 
on cloture and then set a time to complete the debate on Priscilla 
Owen. We would be willing to do that. It would move things along. I 
wanted the leader to know that. We would be happy to talk about 
schedule, how much time people need, and what we are going to do the 
rest of the week. We haven't had time to talk this morning.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, we will talk over the course of the 
morning because over the next 5 days, with the memorandum of 
understanding, we would like to move ahead and address many of the 
judges. At the same time, we have the nomination of John Bolton, whom 
the Democratic leader and I have briefly discussed. I do want to be 
able to continue with the cloture vote that is now on the schedule for 
noon today. It is important to do so in part because of the events of 
yesterday, and I want to follow regular order. With that memorandum of 
understanding, which is important--it is not what the Democratic leader 
or I asked for--it is important that we see how it is going to be 
implemented, and the first step will be that vote today.
  We do have a lot to do this week. I want to keep things organized 
efficiently and well and use time wisely.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if I could direct another question to the 
distinguished leader, it was my understanding of our conversation late 
last night that we were not going to move forward on more judges this 
period but move forward to other matters. Do you now feel differently?
  Mr. FRIST. Well, I think we need to think how much we can do 
realistically this week. With that understanding and the backlog we 
have on judges, if we can move those expeditiously--and we put in a 
plan or process to do so--we should do just that. We have had various 
offers from your side of the aisle on the Michigan judges and on 
Griffith, and now we have this memorandum of understanding for up-or-
down votes on three other nominees we have been debating. Leadership to 
leadership, we ought to sit down and plan how we can deal with judges 
since we have waited a long time for these up-or-down votes and since 
offers have been made back and forth. In light of the understanding the 
14 Senators came to, I think we should move expeditiously and address 
the judges who have been waiting a long time. At the same time, we have 
other very important business--John Bolton to be Ambassador to the 
U.N.--which we do need to address as well.
  As I say that, I want to make an appeal to Senators. A lot has been 
said about many of the judges, and I don't believe we have to say it 
again. Whether it is on Priscilla Owen, who I am confident will get an 
up-or-down vote, or on to some of the other judges, I want to make sure 
everything gets said. But on a lot of these, we have had a lot of 
debate. I would like to sit down with the Democratic leader, in light 
of the events of yesterday, and plan out this week so it will be 
productive. We have a lot of other important business, such as an 
energy bill and a highway bill, that we need to also address.

                          ____________________




                    THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I wish to briefly comment on the events 
of last night. The evening moved very quickly, and it did alter the 
course of what likely would have occurred over the course of today. 
Certain adjustments will be made and are being

[[Page 10916]]

made, as we just heard in the colloquy between the Democratic leader 
and I, in terms of the schedule. Although I am not a party of the 
memorandum of understanding signed last night by 14 of our colleagues, 
I have had the opportunity to further review that agreement in more 
detail.
  I do believe the memorandum of understanding makes modest progress in 
that three individuals will get up-or-down votes on the floor of the 
Senate. To me, it does stop far short of guaranteeing judicial nominees 
the fair up-or-down votes they deserve--other nominees, nominees in the 
future.
  I say that and recognize that with civility and trust, which are two 
values I have tried to stress again and again, and with that memorandum 
of understanding being a starting point and the spirit in which it was 
generated, I believe we can successfully bring these nominees to the 
floor, after coming through the Judiciary Committee, debate them 
extensively, and ultimately bring them to a vote. I believe that is the 
spirit. It will be spun by the left and the right and conservatives and 
liberals in various ways. I did not sign off on the memorandum of 
understanding because it stops far short of the principle, but it does 
put us in a position to move forward expeditiously without delay, 
without filibuster, giving these nominees the votes they deserve and 
the courtesy of a vote. It is our responsibility to vote and give them 
that advice and consent through that up-or-down vote.
  On the agreement, first, it does begin to break the partisan 
obstruction we have seen over the last 2 years. Thematically, it is 
important to get away from extreme partisanship. Parties are important, 
the clash of ideas is important, But where partisanship is injected 
into the system and brings advice and consent to a stop, it is wrong. I 
believe that is the spirit in which the memorandum of understanding, 
with seven Senators from both sides of the aisle, was written.
  Indeed, Priscilla Owen will get an up-or-down vote later today. 
Janice Rogers Brown will get an up-or-down vote. William Pryor will get 
an up-or-down vote. They all will receive the courtesy and fairness of 
a vote.
  Other qualified nominees who have been waiting deserve that same 
courtesy and fairness. Why just those three? Why exclude two others? 
Why be silent on others? That is where the agreement stops far short of 
the principle I have brought to the floor, a principle based on 
fairness.
  Second, the agreement, if followed in good faith, will make 
filibusters in the future, including Supreme Court nominees, almost 
impossible. The words in that agreement of ``will not filibuster except 
under extraordinary circumstances,'' obviously, I am concerned about 
because if extraordinary circumstances are defined as they were in the 
last Congress, which I believe is wrong, on people such as Miguel 
Estrada, who came to this country as an immigrant from Honduras, not 
able to speak English very well, who with hard work worked his way to 
the top of his profession, arguing 15 cases in the Supreme Court, if 
that is extraordinary circumstances, then this agreement will mean very 
little. We have to wait and see. The agreement will have to be 
monitored. The implementation of the memorandum of understanding is 
critical.
  Third, let me be clear: The constitutional option remains on the 
table. It remains an option. I will not hesitate to use it if 
necessary. It should be used as a last resort. Nobody wants to use the 
constitutional option, but it is the only response if there is a change 
in behavior as we saw in the last Congress that is extraordinary, which 
is something that I believe has been absolutely rejected by the 
memorandum of understanding in saying that we are not going to be 
filibustering as we did in the last Congress.
  My goal is restoring the principle of fair up-or-down votes, the 
principle that governed this body for 214 years until the last 
Congress.
  I will say that if the other side of the aisle acts in bad faith, if 
they resume that campaign of routine obstruction where one out of every 
three or four nominees coming from the President who make it through 
the Judiciary Committee, who make it to the Executive Calendar is 
filibustered, the constitutional option is going to come out again. I 
will bring it out. And once again, I will set a date to use it. If that 
is what it takes to move this body forward, we will do that once again.
  The constitutional option is not a threat. It ought to be used as a 
response behavior which I believe is inappropriate to this body as we 
consider nominees. All the constitutional option does is it brings it 
to the floor. One hundred Senators can make the decision as to whether 
the fairness of up-or-down votes is a principle to which they agree.
  I look at all of this today as having the opportunity to begin the 
execution of the memorandum of understanding, using regular order of 
business. The regular order is, as was set out several weeks ago, to 
debate Priscilla Owen extensively, exhaustively, which we have done, 
over 21 days of debate on the Senate floor on Priscilla Owen, and then 
bring it to closure. We had to file a cloture motion. We made an offer 
of 10, 15 hours, and that was turned down by the other side. So we 
filed a cloture petition, and we will have the cloture vote in regular 
order. Depending on the outcome, we will in all likelihood move to an 
up-or-down vote.
  I expect this afternoon that we will confirm Priscilla Owen and, by 
the end of the week's process, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor. 
I will work with the minority leader in terms of the best timing. I 
will work with the Judiciary Committee as well and other Senators to 
move forward expeditiously on other nominees.
  We have had discussions and offers from the other side to move ahead 
with Tom Griffith, which I hope we can do shortly; offers on the Sixth 
Circuit nominees David McKeague, Susan Neilson, and Robert Griffin, all 
of whom deserve a vote on the floor of the Senate, an up-or-down vote. 
So all this has been a very significant, substantial debate.
  I believe the injustice of judicial obstruction in the last Congress 
has been exposed, talked about, recognized, and I believe we have now--
it is not guaranteed--the opportunity to return to the traditions of 
214 years and precedents of 214 years to give these nominees fair up-
or-down votes.
  I hope that progress continues. I am confident it will. I am 
cautiously optimistic. Fair up-or-down votes is a principle I believe 
in and will continue to fight for on the floor of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.

                          ____________________




                      DOING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I support the memorandum of understanding. 
It took the nuclear option off the table. It is gone for our lifetime. 
We don't have to talk about it anymore. I am disappointed there are 
still the threats of the nuclear option. Let's move on. We need not go 
over this, but there were 218 nominees of the President and we turned 
down 10.
  All filibusters are extraordinary. There will be filibusters of 
judges and of other things. That is what the Senate is all about. That 
is what the 14 Senators acknowledged. I admire and respect what they 
did. I am thankful they kept me advised as to what they were doing. It 
is too bad there were not other opportunities to make a ``deal'' 
between the majority leader and me.
  We have to understand that the Senate needs to operate. I say to my 
friend, the distinguished majority leader, there was an agreement made 
on three judges. We feel the merits of those three judges are not good 
and that we need time to talk about those three judges. We will 
continue to do that. The rules of the Senate have not been changed. 
That is what is so good about the agreement of these 14 Senators, who 
rose above the battle and did the right thing.
  I am willing to work with the majority leader. I have said that 
publicly and privately. But we have to be realistic. Unless we work 
into next week, we cannot do all these judges. If that is

[[Page 10917]]

the order--that we are going to work into next week--people should be 
told that now. We are willing to work within the confines of the rules 
of the Senate. If cloture is invoked today, the rule is you get 30 
hours. We are happy to work on that to shorten it a little bit and to 
have a vote sometime tomorrow and then go to other matters. I would 
think we could go to another judge--a controversial judge. We have 
indicated that the judges from Michigan are not controversial. They 
were held up on procedural things because of longstanding problems with 
the Michigan Senators. We would need to debate that for a while.
  We are here to work the will of the Senate. Again, I am somewhat 
disappointed that we still hear threats of nuclear option. That is 
gone. Let's forget about it. I am happy that one of the things the 14 
talked about is having some consultation with the President. I am 
confident that will work out better for the White House and the Senate. 
I hope that transpires. We here want to move forward. We have so much 
that needs to be done.
  The distinguished majority leader has talked about things that need 
to be done, such as the Bolton nomination, which is also controversial. 
We will be happy to try to work to some degree to make that as easy as 
possible for everybody. It is a difficult issue. I have spoken to 
Senator Biden early this morning. He has a plan as to what he feels 
should be done on Bolton. None of this is going to take an hour or two. 
There are things we have to talk about with Bolton.
  As I indicated last night, last night was a good day for the Senate 
and today is a good day. Let's move forward and work as the Senate 
feels it should work. There have been no rule changes. We are here to 
do the will of the people of this country.

                          ____________________




                       RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, 
leadership time is reserved.

                          ____________________




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF PRISCILLA RICHMAN OWEN TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE 
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume executive session to consider the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Priscilla 
Richman Owen, of Texas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth 
Circuit.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11:40 shall be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I will say a few things about the 
compromise that was reached last night. It has a lot of good things in 
it. I think, first and foremost, it represented a consensus of a group 
of Senators who would represent the majority, saying that filibusters 
are not to be routinely utilized in the confirmation process. As a 
matter of fact, they said only in ``extraordinary circumstances'' 
should a filibuster be utilized.
  This was a rejection of what we have seen for over 2 years in the 
Senate. It was a movement toward the historical principles of 
confirmation that I think are very important. I think it is worthy of 
note that the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist, who just left the 
floor, moved so ably on this issue. He spent nearly 2 years studying 
the history, seeking compromises, working with colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle, and as of a few weeks ago had, I believe, quite clearly 
achieved a majority of the Senators who were prepared to exercise the 
constitutional option to establish the rule that we would not 
filibuster judicial nominees. We have not had a judicial filibuster in 
214 years and we should not have one now. A majority in this Senate was 
prepared to act to ensure that we would not have one.
  It was only at that point that serious discussions began on a 
compromise and, as a result of those discussions, seven Senators on 
each side agreed they would act in a certain way and issued the 
statement they did. It does not reflect the majority of either party, 
but it does reflect, in my view, the fact that a majority of this 
Congress does not believe that filibusters are the way to go and should 
not occur except in extraordinary circumstances.
  Frankly, I think that is not the principle we need to adhere to. When 
President Clinton was President and he sought nominees that he chose 
for the Federal bench, and people on the Republican side discussed 
whether a filibuster was appropriate, the Republicans clearly decided 
no and allowed nominees such as Berzon and Paez to have an up-or-down 
vote. They were given an up-or-down vote and both were confirmed, even 
though they were controversial. I think that was significant.
  I have to tell you how thrilled I am that Judge Bill Pryor will be 
able to get an up-or-down vote. He is one of the finest nominees who 
has come before this body. The hard left groups out there, who have 
been driving this process, attacked him early on and misrepresented his 
positions, his character, his integrity, and his legal philosophy. They 
called him an activist, when he is exactly the opposite of that, and 
they created a storm and were able to generate a filibuster against 
him. He had a majority of votes in the Senate, if he could have gotten 
an up-or-down vote. But he was denied that through the inability of the 
majority to cut off debate and have a vote.
  I am so glad the group of 14 who met and looked at these nominees 
concluded he was worthy of being able to get a vote up or down. I have 
to say that has colored my pleasure with the agreement, even though I 
know some other good judges or nominees were not part of the agreement.
  I want to point this out. The minority leader seems to suggest that 
filibusters are here to stay and they are normal and logical, and get 
over it and accept it, and that, oh, no, the constitutional option can 
never be used. That was not in that agreement and that is not what is 
in the hearts and minds of a majority of the Senators in this body. If 
this tactic of filibustering is continued to be used in an abusive way, 
or in a way that frustrates the ability of this Congress to give an up-
or-down vote to the fine nominees of President Bush, there has been no 
waiver of the right to utilize the constitutional option.
  As I understand it, even yesterday Senator Byrd, on the Senate floor, 
admitted the constitutional option is a valid power of the Senate 
majority. I would say this. It ought not to be abused; it ought not to 
be used for light or transient reasons. It ought to be used only in the 
most serious circumstances--the most serious circumstances of the kind 
we have today when, after 200 years of tradition, 200 years of 
following the spirit of the Constitution to give judges up-or-down 
votes, the Senate is systematically altered as it was in the last 
Congress. That is why it was brought out, and with the threat of the 
constitutional option and a majority of Senators who were prepared to 
support it, a compromise was reached. I believe it is significant.
  Finally, I want to note it is exceedingly important that we, as 
Members of this Senate, understand how judges should be evaluated, how 
they have basically always been evaluated, except in recent times. How 
should they be evaluated? They should be evaluated on their judicial 
philosophy, not their political views or their religious views. There 
are nominees who have come before this Senate who have demonstrated 
through a career of practice that they comply with the law, whether 
they agree with it or not. Some of them are pro-life, some of them are 
pro-choice, some of them are for big Government, some of them are for 
smaller Government, some of them are for strong national defense, some 
of them are not. That is not the test and cannot be the test.

[[Page 10918]]

  We had one situation that troubled me. I was pleased eventually that 
this nominee was confirmed. A man and a woman--the man was nominated 
for judge and had been No. 1 in his law school class. They had written 
a letter to the members of their church, a Catholic Church in Arkansas, 
and they discussed their view of marriage in the Christian tradition. 
They affirmed that and quoted from Scripture. We had persons attack 
that nominee because they said it somehow elevated a man over a woman. 
That is not the rich tradition of marriage as was explained in their 
letter. But it led to that attack. That made starkly clear in my mind 
what is at stake here. This is the question: Are we to expect that 
every nominee that comes here has to lay out their personal philosophy, 
their marital philosophy, their religious beliefs, and we sit and judge 
them on whether we agree with that?
  Is that the way you judge a judge to see if they are qualified: Do I 
agree with their theology? Do I agree with their political philosophy? 
Do I agree with their opinion on Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Is that 
what we do?
  We cannot do that. We should not do that. We ought to be pleased that 
a nominee has cared enough about his or her country to speak out on the 
issues that come before the country. We ought to be pleased that they 
have been active and they care and they participate in the great 
political debate in America. But we ought not say to them, because you 
said one thing about abortion, and you are pro-life or you are pro-
choice, you can never follow the law of the Supreme Court or the 
Constitution and, therefore, we are not going to allow you to be a 
judge. We cannot do that. That is a wrong step.
  I think that was implicit in this compromise--at least I hope it was. 
I think it said that judges, such as Judge Bill Pryor who, when asked 
did if he said abortion was bad, answered: Yes, sir, I do. And when he 
was asked: Do you still believe it? He said: Yes, sir. I do. He had a 
record, fortunately, that he could then call on to show that he was 
prepared to enforce the law whether he agreed with it or not. If he had 
been in the legislature, he might have voted differently. But as a 
judge or as attorney general, he had a record on which he could call to 
show that he enforced the law.
  For example, Judge Pryor would certainly have opposed partial-birth 
abortion, one of the worst possible abortion procedures. But as 
attorney general in the 1990s, when Alabama passed a partial-birth 
abortion ban, he wrote every district attorney in the State on his own 
motion--he did not have to, but he had the power to do so as attorney 
general--and told them that portions of that bill, with which he 
probably agreed, were unconstitutional and should not be enforced.
  Later, when the Supreme Court of the United States rendered the 
Stenberg decision that struck down an even larger portion of the 
foundation of partial-birth abortion statutes that had passed around 
the country, he wrote another letter to the district attorneys and told 
them the Alabama statute was unconstitutional.
  Does that not prove what we are about here? It is not your personal 
belief but your commitment to law that counts?
  What about the circumstance when he was accused of being too pro-
religion? I do not think the facts show an abuse of his power in any 
way. In fact, he found himself in the very difficult circumstance in 
Alabama of being the attorney general and having the responsibility to 
prosecute or present the case against the sitting chief justice of the 
Alabama Supreme Court who placed the Ten Commandments in the supreme 
court building. The chief justice had been ordered to remove it by the 
Federal courts, and he did not remove it. Other judges removed it. 
Attorney General Bill Pryor presented that case, and Judge Moore was 
removed from office.
  That was a big deal. It was a tough deal. Time after time, he has 
done that.
  Priscilla Owen also is a nominee of the most extraordinary 
qualifications. She made the highest possible score on the bar exam in 
Texas. That is a big State and bar exams are not easy. She is a 
brilliant lawyer, highly successful in the private practice of law in 
Texas. They encouraged her to run for the supreme court. She did so. 
She won. The last time she ran, she received 84 percent of the vote in 
Texas. This is a professional lawyer/jurist, brilliant, hard-working, a 
woman of great integrity and decency. She has questioned the concept or 
the idea that judges have a right to go back and reinterpret the 
meaning of the Constitution or statutes and read into them whatever 
they like to make them agree with the judge's philosophy. Many today 
seem to think they are at liberty to do this. In fact, some judges go 
back and try to twist, bend, stretch the meaning of words to promote 
agendas in which they believe. Priscilla Owen does not believe in that 
and has spoken against it.
  Her philosophy as a judge reflects restraint, and a dedication to 
following the law. That is what she has stood for, and she has been 
criticized roundly as being an extremist--a judge who received 84 
percent of the vote and was endorsed by every newspaper in the State.
  Judge Priscilla Owen also was rated by the American Bar Association 
unanimously well qualified, the highest rating they give. This is not 
an extremist.
  What was it here? Outside groups who have made a history of 
identifying and attacking these nominees have mischaracterized her, 
just as they did Judge Pryor. Both of these nominees, for example, have 
tremendous support within their State, tremendous bipartisan support in 
conference.
  That is why I am confident the 14 people who got together and 
reviewed this situation felt they could not leave her or the other two 
judges off this list. They just could not deny Janice Rogers Brown, 
Priscilla Owen, or Judge Bill Pryor an up-or-down vote. They were too 
decent, had too much of a good record, too many supporters in the 
African-American community, in the Democratic leadership of their 
States, and that is why they were given this vote.
  I think perhaps we are now moving forward to a new day in 
confirmations. I hope so. We have been far too bitter in attacking good 
people. Records have been distorted dishonestly, particularly by 
outside groups and sometimes that has been picked up by Senators. My 
Democratic colleagues have outsourced their decisionmaking process at 
times, I am afraid. They have allowed the People for the American Way 
and Ralph Neas and the Alliance for Justice, the people who spend their 
lives digging up dirt, sullying people's reputations, twisting facts, 
taking cases out of context, taking statements out of context, taking 
speeches out of context, posturing and painting nominees as things they 
are absolutely not, to influence their decisions. It is wrong. 
Hopefully, we are now moving in a better direction.
  I am also hopeful that as a result of this agreement, the nomination 
process in the future will go better. Maybe even issues such as 
transportation, energy, and defense will go better in this Congress. I 
hope so. I will try to do my part.
  I want to say one thing, the constitutional option has not been 
removed from the table. We cannot allow filibusters to come back and be 
abused. We absolutely cannot. The majority should never allow that 
historic change to occur while they have the ability to resist and that 
ability still exists. I believe the majority leader, Bill Frist, is 
correct in that analysis. He has stated the ideals of this Senate. He 
has reminded us of the history and traditions of the Senate. He has 
reminded us that Republicans were faithful to that tradition and the 
Democrats need to be, too. So I hope we will be able to move forward 
with the consideration of more and more nominees as President Bush goes 
forward in his term, and that as we do so, they will be given a fair 
hearing. I hope that Senators on both sides of the aisle will look at 
the facts and allegations about nominees to make sure those are 
truthful, accurate, and fair characterizations of them, and not 
mischaracterizations, not distortions, not misrepresentations of what 
they

[[Page 10919]]

are and what they have done. If we do that, we are going to be OK.
  Let me say this about President Bush. He has gone to the American 
people. He has stated his case to them. He stated clearly and 
effectively he believes that judges should be committed to the rule of 
law, should follow the law, that they should not be activist, they 
should not seek to impose personal and political agendas through the 
redefinition of words of statutes or our Constitution. The American 
people have affirmed him in that.
  The Senate obstruction and filibuster of Federal judges has been a 
big issue in the last two election cycles in this Senate, and 
Republicans have, as a result, in my opinion--it is my opinion, I will 
admit--picked up six new Senate seats. I think a large part of that is 
because people in these States have been concerned about the 
obstruction of good and decent nominees, and the people of this country 
are of the opinion that their liberties are in jeopardy when an 
unelected lifetime-appointed judge starts setting social policy. If 
they are not happy with my vote on social policy, I can be removed from 
office, but a judge has a lifetime appointment, and the American people 
understand that. They understand that an activist judge is, indeed, 
antidemocratic. It is an antidemocratic act when a judge, without 
accountability to the public, starts setting social and political 
policy, as we have seen too often in recent years.
  As a result, I believe we need to return to our traditions that have 
served both sides well, and if we do that, we can move forward, I 
believe, to a better process on judges and other issues that come 
before this body. I am cautiously optimistic for the future.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time on this side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I understand that by previous 
agreement, time is allocated; is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And there is to be 1 hour for one side, 1 hour to the 
other side, prior to the leadership time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 47 minutes remaining for 
the minority.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  First, I commend my friend and colleague, our leader, Senator Reid, 
for his perseverance during these past several weeks and adherence to 
the great traditions of the institution of the Senate. It has been an 
extraordinary example of devotion to the Senate, to our Constitution, 
the checks and balances which are written into the Constitution. Our 
President has a veto, and the Members of Congress have the right to 
speak. There are those who would like to muzzle, silence, effectively 
cut off the debate in the Senate. With this agreement of last evening, 
that time, hopefully, has ended. It certainly has been for this 
Congress.
  I was listening to some of my colleagues earlier. I read from the 
agreement about rules change:

       In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in 
     this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 
     109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or 
     interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a 
     vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous 
     consent or rule XXII.

  The current rule. There it is. Yet we heard the mention by the leader 
earlier this morning that he believes somehow the nuclear option is 
still alive and well.
  It does seem to me the American people want to get about the American 
people's business. This has been an enormous distraction.
  I listened to my friend and colleague from Tennessee who says we want 
to follow the rules and traditions of the Senate, so we are going back 
to the regular order. If we go back to the regular order, we are going 
back to the traditions and rules as they stand: You have the vote of 
every member on this side. That is not what the majority leader was 
talking about. He was talking about we will go back to the regular 
order; he was going to change the order with a whole series of changed 
rules.
  That is what the members of this side and the courageous Republicans 
on the other side found offensive. We believe we ought to be about our 
people's business. We have approved 95 percent of the Republicans' 
nominees. I am sure some are, perhaps, pro-choice; many of them--
probably most of them--are pro-life. They have still gone through. The 
real question is whether we are going to be stampeded and be silenced 
with regard to judges who are so far outside of the mainstream of 
judicial thinking that it was going to be the judgment of the majority 
leader that he was going to change the rules in a way that would deny 
the Senate's Parliamentarian, who has been the safeguarder of these 
rules for the 214 years of the Senate, and bring in the Vice President, 
who was going to rule according to his liking rather than to the 
traditions of the Senate.
  That kind of abridgement, that kind of destruction, that kind of 
running roughshod over the Senate rules is offensive to the American 
people and offensive to us. It was avoided by the actions that were 
taken last evening in which our Democratic leader was the principal 
architect and supporter.
  Yesterday was a day that will live in American history, and our 
grandchildren and their grandchildren will discuss what happened. They 
will do so with much more insight than we can today because they will 
know what the results of yesterday's agreements actually turned out to 
be. I hope that history will judge us well as an institution. We came 
close to having a vote that threatened the essence of the Senate and of 
our Government. It risked destruction of the checks and balances among 
the branches that the Framers so carefully constructed. It risked 
destruction of the independence of the judiciary, which is at the heart 
and soul of this issue. It risked an accumulation of power in the 
President that might have turned back the clock toward the day when we 
were subjects instead of citizens.
  We have avoided that confrontation and have done so within the 
traditions of the Senate: discussion, debate, negotiation and 
compromise. Moderation and reason have prevailed. As in any compromise, 
some on each side are unhappy with specific aspects of the result, but 
the essence is clear. A majority of this body does not want to break 
its rules and traditions. Those rules and traditions will be preserved.
  This body's self-regulating mechanisms will continue to be a 
moderating influence, not only within the body but also on the other 
House and the other branches of Government. Once again, the Senate has 
reminded the Chief Executive that we are not merely occupants of a 
beautiful building at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. We taught 
George Washington that lesson when we rejected one of his Supreme Court 
nominations. We taught Thomas Jefferson that lesson when we refused to 
convict an impeached Justice whose opinions Jefferson did not like. We 
taught Franklin Roosevelt that lesson when he tried to pack the Supreme 
Court. We taught Richard Nixon that lesson when he sent us a worse 
nominee after we defeated his first nominee for a Supreme Court 
position.
  As even the Republicans in the agreement group said, this agreement 
should persuade the President to take more seriously the advice portion 
of the advice and consent. If the President understands the message and 
takes it to heart, his nominees will be better off, the courts will be 
better off, and the Nation will be better off.
  Our principal goal was to preserve the ability of the Senate to 
protect the independence of the Federal courts, including the Supreme 
Court, and we have succeeded in doing so. We have sent a strong message 
to the President that if he wants to get his judicial nominees 
confirmed, his selections must have a broader support from the American 
people.
  As a result of this agreement, we can hope that no Senator will ever 
again pretend that the Constitution commands a final vote on every 
Executive nominee, for it has never done so and it does not do so now.

[[Page 10920]]

  We can hope that no one will again pretend that there has never been 
a filibuster of a judicial nominee when they can look across the Senate 
floor at three Democratic Senators who witnessed the Republican 
filibuster against Justice Fortas and Republican Senators who 
participated in other judicial filibusters. We can hope that no one 
again will pretend that it is possible to break the fundamental Senate 
rule on ending a filibuster without shattering the basic bonds of trust 
that make this institution the world's greatest deliberative body.
  I believe history will judge that we have not failed those who 
created America two centuries ago by what we have done. We have fought 
off those who would have destroyed this institution and its vital role 
in our Government for shameful partisan advantage. By rejecting the 
nuclear option, the Senate has lived up to its responsibilities as a 
separate and equal branch of Government.
  I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that agreement 
does not change the serious objections to the nominations that have 
been debated in the past days. Those of us who care about the 
judiciary, who respect mainstream values, who reject the notion that 
judgeships are spoils to be awarded to political fringe groups, will 
continue to oppose the nomination of Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers 
Brown, and William Pryor because they would roll back rights and 
freedoms important to the American people.
  Now that these nominees are slated to get a vote on the floor, I hope 
courageous and responsible Republicans will show their independence 
from the White House and thoroughly examine the records of each of 
them. If they do, I hope they will agree that these nominees should not 
be given lifetime appointments to the Nation's courts, where they will 
wield enormous power over the lives of all Americans.
  Those of us who oppose the nomination of Priscilla Owen have done so 
with good cause because her record makes clear that she puts her own 
ideology above laws that protect the American people. I have made that 
case. I just remind our colleagues of what the Houston Chronicle said. 
The Houston Chronicle, from her own area, wrote that her record shows 
less interest in impartiality and interpreting law than in pushing an 
agenda. She too often contorts rulings to conform to her particular 
conservative outlook. Those are not fringe groups. That is the Houston 
Chronicle.
  Austin American-Statesman: Priscilla Owen is so conservative she 
places herself outside of the broad mainstream of jurisprudence and she 
seems all too willing to bend the law to fit her views.
  Those are not leftwing fringe groups. That is the Austin American-
Statesman.
  San Antonio Express News: She has always voted with a small court 
minority that consistently tries to bypass the law as written by the 
legislature.
  I have included at other times in the Record the 10 different 
occasions when the current Attorney General of the United States 
criticized Priscilla Owen for being outside of the mainstream of 
judicial thinking. I ask unanimous consent that six or eight of those, 
and the cases, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Examples of Gonzales's Criticisms of Owen

       In one case, Justice Gonzales held that Texas law clearly 
     required manufacturers to be responsible to retailers that 
     sell their defective products. He wrote that Justice Owen's 
     dissenting opinion would ``judicially amend the statute'' to 
     let manufacturers off the hook.
       In a case in 2000, Justice Gonzales and a majority of the 
     Texas Supreme Court upheld a jury award holding that the 
     Texas Department of Transportation and the local transit 
     authority were responsible for a deadly auto accident. He 
     explained that the result was required by the ``plain 
     meaning'' of Texas law. Justice Owen dissented, claiming that 
     Texas should be immune from these suits. Justice Gonzales 
     wrote that her view misread the law, which he said was 
     ``clear and unequivocal.''
       In another case, Justice Gonzales joined a majority opinion 
     that criticized Justice Owen for ``disregarding the 
     procedural limitations in the statute,'' and ``taking a 
     position even more extreme'' than had been argued by the 
     defendant in the case.
       In another case in 2000, private landowners tried to use a 
     Texas law to exempt themselves from local environmental 
     regulations. The court's majority ruled that the law was an 
     unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to 
     private individuals. Justice Owen dissented, claiming that 
     the majority's opinion ``strikes a severe blow to private 
     property rights.'' Justice Gonzales joined a majority opinion 
     criticizing her view, stating that most of her opinion was 
     ``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric which merits no 
     response.''
       Justice Gonzales also wrote an opinion holding that an 
     innocent spouse could recover insurance proceeds when her co-
     insured spouse intentionally set fire to their insured home. 
     Justice Owen joined a dissent that would have denied coverage 
     of the spouse, on the theory that the arsonist might somehow 
     benefit from the court's decision. Justice Gonzales' majority 
     opinion stated that her argument was based on a ``theoretical 
     possibility'' that would never happen in the real world, and 
     that violated the plain language of the insurance policy.
       In still another case, Justice Owen joined a partial 
     dissent that would have limited the right to jury trials. The 
     dissent was criticized by the other judges as a ``judicial 
     sleight of hand'' to bypass the Texas Constitution.

  Mr. KENNEDY. This is Attorney General Gonzales on the supreme court 
with Priscilla Owen, critical of her of being outside the mainstream. 
That is the point we have basically made.
  This week, the American people are saying loudly and clearly that 
they are tired of the misplaced priorities and abuse of power by the 
rightwing. This agreement sends a strong message to the President that 
if he wants to get his judicial nominees confirmed, his selections need 
to have broad support from the American people.
  Going forward on any nomination, the President must take the advice 
and consent clause seriously. The Senate is not a rubberstamp for the 
White House. The message of Monday's agreement is clear: Abuse of power 
will not be tolerated. Attempts to trample the Constitution will be 
stopped.
  Over the last few weeks, the Republican Party has shown itself to be 
outside the mainstream, holding up the Senate over the judges while gas 
prices have jumped up through the ceiling, stubbornly insisting on the 
Social Security plan that cuts benefits and makes matters worse, 
passing a budget that offers plenty to corporations but little to 
students, nurses, and cops, and running roughshod over ethics rules. 
These are not the priorities of the American people. The American 
people want us to get back to what is of central concern to their 
lives, the lives of their children, their parents, and their neighbors. 
That is what we ought to be about doing, and preserving the 
Constitution and the rules of the Senate. The agreement that was made 
in a bipartisan way does that, and it should be supported by our 
colleagues in the Senate.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, No. 1, there has been a lot said about 
last night. I was one of the signatories of the agreement. I think last 
night gives us a chance to start over. Seldom in life do people get a 
chance to start over and learn from their mistakes.
  There have been some mistakes made for about 20 years on judges, and 
it finally all caught up with us. It started with Judge Bork. He was 
the first person I can remember in our lifetime who was basically 
subjected to ``how will he decide a particular case,'' and he was 
attacked because of his philosophy, not because of his qualifications. 
It has just gotten worse over time. Clarence Thomas--we all remember 
that.
  The truth is, when the Republicans were in charge of the Judiciary 
Committee, there is a pretty good case to be made that some of 
President Clinton's nominees were bottled up when we had control of the 
Judiciary Committee, and they never got out into the normal process.
  Where do we find ourselves now? It started with an attack on one 
person because people did not like the philosophy of that person, which 
was new for the Senate. Before that, when a judge was sent over, we 
looked at whether they were qualified ethically and intellectually.

[[Page 10921]]

  One has to understand that there is a consequence to an election. 
When a President wins an election, that President has a right to send 
nominees over to the Senate for Federal courts. It has always been 
assumed that conservative people are going to pick conservative judges, 
and moderate and liberal people are going to be somewhere in the 
middle. That has worked for 200 years.
  The bottom line is, the President can send over somebody who they 
think is conservative, and they can be fooled. They can send somebody 
they think is liberal, and over a lifetime they may change. What we 
have been able to do as a body is to push back but eventually give 
people a chance to be voted on.
  I was a ``yes'' vote. Senator DeWine and myself were ready to vote 
for the nuclear option this morning if we had to, the constitutional 
option. It can be called whatever one wants to call it, but it would 
have been a mess for the country. It would have been better to end this 
mess now than pass it on to the next generation of Senators because if 
the filibuster becomes an institutional response where 40 Senators 
driven by special interest groups declare war on nominees in the 
future, the consequence will be that the judiciary will be destroyed 
over time. People can get rid of us every 6 years, thank God, but once 
a judge is put on the bench, it is a lifetime appointment. We should be 
serious about that.
  We should also understand that people who want to be judges have 
rejected the political life, and when we make them political pawns and 
political footballs, a lot of good, qualified men and women who are 
moderate, conservative, or liberal will take a pass on sitting on the 
bench. If the filibuster becomes the way we engage each other on 
judges, if it becomes the response of special interest groups to a 
President who won who they are upset with, the Senate will suffer a 
black eye with the American people, but the judiciary will slowly but 
surely become unraveled.
  That is why I think we have a chance to start over. That is why I 
voted for us to start over, and I hope we have learned our lesson.
  As to Priscilla Owen, it is the most manufactured opposition to a 
good person I have seen short of Judge Pickering, only to soon-to-be 
Judge Pryor and a close third is Justice Brown. What has been said 
about these people is beyond the pale. They have been called 
Neanderthals. If one has somebody they know and care about and they are 
thinking about being a judge, I think they need to be given fair 
warning that if they decide a case that a special interest group does 
not like, a lot of bad things are going to be coming their way.
  Do we really need to call three people who have graduated near the 
top of their class, who have had a lifetime of service to the bar, 
Neanderthals? We have a chance to start over, and we better take it, 
because one thing the American people have from this whole show is that 
the Senate is out of touch with who they are and what they believe 
because we have allowed this thing to sink into the abyss. Priscilla 
Owen got 84 percent of the vote in Texas, and John Cornyn knows her 
well. He served with her. She graduated at the top of her class; scored 
the highest on the bar exam. She has been a solid judge. What has been 
said about her has been a cut-and-paste, manufactured character 
assassination. Whether she is in the mainstream, the best way to find 
out is when people vote. When Priscilla Owen finally gets a vote here 
soon, you are going to see she is very much in the mainstream, if a 
supermajority of Senators count for anything. She is going to get 
votes. She is going to get a lot more than 50 of them. So is Judge 
Pryor.
  The problem I have had with Bill Pryor and the way he has been 
handled is that he is the type person I grew up with. He is a 
conservative person. He is a good family man. But he has made some 
calls in Alabama that are unbelievably heroic, when it comes to 
politics and the law. Being for the Ten Commandments is a big deal in 
Alabama. Judge Moore, Justice Moore took that and rode that horse and 
beat it to death and it got to be a hot issue in Alabama and it got to 
be a hot issue all over the country. The attorney general of Alabama, 
Bill Pryor, followed the law and took on Justice Moore. He didn't have 
to, but he chose to.
  At every turn he has proved to me he is bigger than the political 
moment. When he gets voted on, I am going to take this floor and we are 
going to talk a little bit longer about him. The people in Alabama 
across the board should be proud of Bill Pryor. He is going to make a 
heck of a Federal judge.
  Now, where do we go? This agreement was among 14 Senators who 
believed that starting over would matter--14 Senators from different 
regions of the country, supported by their colleagues in a quiet 
fashion, more than you will ever know. What happens in the future 
depends on all of us working together. It depends on trust and good 
faith. The White House needs to talk with us more, and they will. Our 
Democratic friends need to understand that the filibuster as a tool to 
punish George W. Bush is not going to sustain you very long and will 
put you on the wrong side of the American people and will eventually 
destroy the judiciary.
  The agreement says that in future nomination battles, the seven 
Democrats will not filibuster unless there are extraordinary 
circumstances. What does that mean? Well, we will know it when we see 
it. It means we will keep talking. It means they don't have to lay down 
in the road if there is a Supreme Court fight. There is going to be a 
Supreme Court nomination coming, probably soon, and that is what this 
is about. But our seven Democratic colleagues decided to find a middle 
way to bring some calm to the body. I think we can get a conservative 
justice nominated and confirmed if we try hard. Nobody should expect 
anything less from George W. Bush. But there is a way to get there from 
here and I do believe the seven Democrats who signed this agreement 
will work very hard to make that happen along with all Senators at the 
end of day.
  But if there comes a point in time in the future when one of the 
seven Democrats believes this person before them is so unacceptable 
they have to get back in the filibuster business, here is what it means 
to the Republicans--because I helped write the language. It means we 
will talk, we will listen, and we will discuss why they feel that way. 
But it means I am back in the ball game. If one of the seven decides to 
filibuster and I believe it is not an extraordinary circumstance for 
the country, for the process, then I have retained my rights under this 
agreement to change the rules if I think that is best for the country. 
That is only fair. My belief is we will never have to cross that 
bridge. But those who say this is a one-sided deal misrepresent what 
happened in that room. This is about moving forward, avoiding conflict 
in the future by talking and trusting.
  But there may come a time, and I hope to God it doesn't happen, where 
we go different directions. The only reason we will ever go different 
directions is that we will start playing politics again and lose sight 
of the common good.
  The two nominees who were in category two I think will get back in 
the process in a fair way. The truth is all of the nominees were never 
going to make it. There are some Republicans who will vote against some 
of these nominees. But they all deserve a fair process and they all 
deserve to be fairly treated. None of them deserve to be called 
Neanderthals.
  It is my hope and my belief we will get this group of nominees fairly 
dealt with. Some are going to make it and some will not. But they will 
get the process back to the way it used to be. As to the future, it is 
my belief that by talking and working together in collaboration with 
the White House, we can pick Supreme Court Justices, if that day ever 
comes, so that everybody can be at least happy with the process, if not 
proud of the nominee. That is possible because we have done it for 200 
years. But please don't say, as a Democrat, you can do anything you 
want to do in the 109th Congress and nothing can happen, because that 
is not true.
  I have every confidence we can get through this mess, but there is no 
agreement that allows one side to unilaterally do what it would like to 
do

[[Page 10922]]

and the other side be ignored. Because if that were the case, it wasn't 
much of an agreement.
  I look forward to voting for Justice Owen, I look forward to voting 
for Judge Pryor, I look forward to voting for Justice Brown, and 
putting to rest the idea that these nominees were out of the 
mainstream.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Before my friend and colleague from South Carolina 
leaves, I want to congratulate him and my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle for bringing us to this point. The most important point about 
what has happened in the last 12 hours is we have maintained the checks 
and balances in the Senate. We are retaining the ability for minority 
views to be heard. That is most important.
  It is not always Democrats versus Republicans. It could be little 
States, such as the State of my friend from Delaware, whom I see on the 
floor, versus Michigan or California. It could be different groups of 
people. It could be Great Lakes Senators banding together to protect 
our Great Lakes versus others who want to divert water. It could be a 
variety of issues.
  The fact that the Senate is the place we can come together and 
minority views can be heard is a part of our democratic process. It is 
a part of our democracy that has held us together for over 200 years. I 
commend my colleagues for standing up and saying no to eliminating the 
filibuster and no to eliminating the checks and balances of our 
Government.
  It involves some compromise, as these agreements always do. While I 
personally will not support the nomination of the person before us 
today, I understand that in order to maintain the broad principle of 
checks and balances in the Senate, in order to allow us to exercise our 
minority views at a future point if there are extreme nominees coming 
forward, this was an important compromise to make.
  Part of that is an important piece that Senator Levin and I 
contributed to the process of allowing the Senate to move forward on 
three nominees of the Sixth Circuit from Michigan. So there are 
compromises that have been made in the interests of the larger good, in 
the interests of maintaining the checks and balances, the ability for 
us to work together on both sides of the aisle to get things done for 
the American people. That is why we are here.
  Now we need to get about the business of getting things done for 
people. When I go home every weekend, when I talk to my family in 
Michigan, when I talk to everyone I represent--families all across 
Michigan, they say, We want you to focus on jobs, American jobs. We 
want our jobs here. We want to reward work in this country and know 
that when we work hard every day and play by the rules, we are going to 
be able to care for our families and that we have respect for the 
dignity of work and that we will reward Americans who are working hard 
every day.
  They say to me they are desperately concerned about their pensions. 
Look what is happening. We in this body need to be focusing on 
protecting the pensions, the retirement security of all the Americans 
who worked all their lives. They put that money aside and they count on 
that pension in retirement for themselves and their families. Now they 
are seeing that American dream eroded. Pension security, strengthening 
Social Security, making sure health care is available to every 
American--these are the issues that, in this body, we need to be 
working on together because they directly affect every single person we 
represent.
  I am hopeful we will now be able to put this aside and we will be 
able to move on with the people's agenda for this country, creating 
opportunities for everybody to succeed, rewarding work, making sure we 
are protecting and expanding American jobs and American businesses, 
making sure we are energy independent.
  We will be having legislation brought before us shortly. I know there 
is important bipartisan work going on. But we need to say we are going 
to be independent in terms of energy resources and that we are going to 
move forward as well on issues that relate to national security--not 
only a strong defense abroad but making sure our police officers and 
firefighters have what they need, and our emergency responders, so that 
we have security at home. When somebody calls 911, they will know they 
are going to get the response they need in terms of their security.
  We have a lot of work to do. People are expecting us to get about the 
people's business. I am very proud that last night our leader on this 
side of the aisle, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, spoke to those 
issues. In praising where we are now, the fact that we will continue to 
have the rules and checks and balances of the Senate, he also then 
spoke about the fact that we have to get about the people's business 
because every day when people get up in the morning they are wondering 
what is going to happen that day for themselves and their families.
  It is our job to do everything we can to make sure their hard work is 
rewarded and opportunities for the future, for our children and 
grandchildren, are protected. This is a fight for the future. It is a 
fight about where we need to go as a country. Our families are counting 
on us to turn to the things they care about every day. The values and 
priorities of the American people need to be what we are talking about 
and acting on in this Chamber. I am hopeful we will very quickly turn 
to those matters: jobs, health care for every single American, 
opportunities for our kids to be successful, energy independence, a 
strong defense here and abroad. If we do that, then we will be able to 
hold our heads high, because we will have done those things that matter 
most to the families we represent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, when I was in college and law school, 
there was a character played by the actress Gilda Radner on ``Saturday 
Night Live,'' who was known best for purporting to do the news and 
would engage in this screed about some subject, and then she would be 
corrected, only to have her then reply, ``Never mind.''
  I thought about that when I have contemplated the occurrences of the 
last few days, particularly the last day when it came to the sort of 
apocalyptic terms that were used as we approached breaking the logjam 
over the President's long-delayed judicial nominees. But for this 
secret negotiation conducted by 14 Senators that none of the rest of 
the Senate was a party to, we would be, I believe, about the process of 
reestablishing the precedent of majority rule that had prevailed for 
214 years in the Senate, that would say any President's nominees, 
whether they be Republican or Democrat, if they have the support of a 
majority of the Senate, will get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. 
Senators who believe these nominees should be confirmed can vote for 
them and those who believe they should not be confirmed can vote 
against them.
  I was not a party to the negotiations and what happened in this room 
off the Senate floor, but I do have some concerns I wanted to express 
about what has happened.
  It is important to recognize what this so-called agreement among 
these 14 Senators does and what it does not do. First of all, one of 
the things it does, it means that at least three of the President's 
nominees--Bill Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen--will get 
an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor and that they will be, I trust, 
confirmed to serve in the Federal judiciary.
  What this agreement by these 14 Senators does not do, it does not 
give any assurance that other nominees of the President--Mr. Myers, in 
particular, and others--will get an up-or-down vote that they deserve 
according to the common understanding of the Senate for more than 200 
years by which those who enjoyed majority support did get that vote and 
did get confirmed.
  What this agreement says, we are told, is that seven Democrats and, 
presumably, seven Republicans reserve the right to filibuster judicial 
nominees

[[Page 10923]]

under extraordinary circumstances, but we are left to wonder what those 
extraordinary circumstances might be. What makes me so skeptical about 
this agreement among these 14 is that extraordinary circumstances are 
in the eye of the beholder.
  Looking at the litany of false charges made against Priscilla Owen 
for the last 4 years makes me skeptical that any nominee, no matter how 
qualified, no matter how deserving, that under appropriate 
circumstances our colleagues, some of our colleagues, will find the 
circumstances extraordinary and still reserve unto themselves what they 
perceive as their right to engage in a filibuster and deny a bipartisan 
majority our right to an up-or-down vote.
  It is clear to me this agreement among these 14 to which 86 Senators 
were not a party does not solve anything. What it does do is perhaps 
delay the inevitable. Senator DeWine, in particular, one of the 
signatories of this agreement, says this is an effort to break the 
logjam on these three nominees, hopefully, change the standard by which 
at least seven Senators on the other side of the aisle will engage in a 
filibuster, and perhaps start anew.
  I hope Senator DeWine is correct in his reading and his understanding 
of this agreement. I was not a party to it; presumably, 84 Senators 
were not a party to it. Negotiations took place in a room where I 
didn't participate, where the American people were not given the 
opportunity to listen and judge for themselves.
  The thing that disturbs me most about this temporary resolution, if 
you can call it that, is that while 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats were 
a party to this agreement, a product of these negotiations, the fact is 
that the 7 Republicans of this 14 would have agreed to close off debate 
and would have agreed to allow an up-and-down vote, while it is clear 
that the 7 Democrats would not have agreed otherwise to withhold the 
filibuster and allow an up-or-down vote.
  What reminds me so much of Roseanne Rosannadanna on Saturday Night 
Live and Gilda Radner, now in effect what they are saying after 4 years 
of character assassination, unjustified attacks, and a blatant 
misrepresentation of the record of these fine nominees, they are 
saying, in effect, never mind, as if it never happened. But it did 
happen. It is important to recognize what has happened. It is a blight 
on the record of this body, and it is further evidence of how broken 
our judicial confirmation process has been.
  I have nothing but admiration for the courage of our majority leader 
in bringing us to this point. I believe if he had not had the courage 
and determination--and, I might add, our assistant majority leader, 
Mitch McConnell--if our leadership had not had the determination to 
bring us to this point, I have no doubt that we would not have reached 
at least this temporary resolution. They are entitled to a whole lot of 
credit for their courage and their willingness to hold the feet to the 
fire of those in the partisan minority who would have denied a 
bipartisan majority the right to an up-and-down vote on these nominees.
  This agreement of these 14 Senators delays but does not solve the 
problem. Of course, we all anticipate that before long, there will be a 
Supreme Court vacancy which will test this definition of what these 14 
call extraordinary circumstances. I wonder whether this standard will 
be applied to the other nominees who were not explicitly covered by 
this agreement; that is, other nominees who have been pending for years 
who were not given, as Justice Owen, Justice Brown, and Judge Pryor 
have been, the opportunity for an up-or-down vote.
  Let me say I hope I am wrong. But there is plenty of reason to be 
skeptical about this so-called agreement of these 14. Perhaps we will 
see a triumph of hope over experience, but our experience over the last 
4 years has been a bad one and one which I don't think reflects well on 
the Senate.
  I hope I am wrong. I hope what has been established is a new 
precedent that says that the filibuster is inappropriate and will not 
be used against judicial nominees because of perceived difference in 
judicial philosophy, that people who have certain fundamental 
convictions will not automatically be disqualified from judicial 
office. I hope that is where we are. As we know, though, extraordinary 
circumstances could be interpreted by some to mean that if you can 
vilify and demonize a nominee enough, that, indeed, the filibuster 
continues to be justified. We know from the false accusations made 
against too many of President Bush's nominees how easy that is to do.
  After $10 million--that is one estimate I have heard--in the various 
special interest attack ads have been run against Priscilla Owen and 
Janice Rogers Brown and others, after $10 million or more, perhaps, the 
American people are told, never mind, we did not really mean it; or 
even if we did mean it, you are not supposed to take us seriously 
because what this is all about is a game.
  This is about the politics of character assassination, the politics 
of personal destruction. In Washington, perhaps people can be forgiven 
for believing that happens far too much. Indeed, that is what has 
happened with these fine nominees. But now they are told, particularly 
in the case of Justice Owen, after 4 years, never mind, all the things 
that were said about you, all the questions raised are beside the 
point, and you are not going to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals after waiting 4 years for an up-or-down vote.
  I worry some nominees in the future will simply say: I am not going 
to put my family through that. I think about Miguel Estrada, who waited 
2 years for an up-or-down vote with the wonderful American success 
story, but after 2 years he simply had to say: I can't wait anymore. My 
reputation cannot sustain the continued unjustified attacks. I am 
simply going to withdraw.
  Unfortunately, when we have good men and women who simply say, I 
can't pay the price that public service demands of me and demands of my 
family, I fear we are all losers as a result of that process.
  I am skeptical of this agreement made by 14 after secret negotiations 
that we were not a party to. Perhaps I am being unduly skeptical. I 
hope I am wrong. I hope what has happened today and I hope we are 
reassured over the hours and days that lie ahead that what has been 
established is a new precedent, one that says we will not filibuster 
judicial nominees, we are not going to assassinate their character, we 
are not going to spend millions of dollars demonizing them.
  I hope I am wrong and that we have a fresh start when it comes to 
judicial nominations. The American people deserve better. These 
nominees deserve better. This Senate deserves better than what we have 
seen over the last 4 years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, a week ago, I stood in this Chamber and I 
reminded Members to look back some 200 years. The issue of how we are 
going to nominate and confirm judicial appointees is not a new issue. 
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, there were many 
issues to resolve. One of the last issues resolved was, who is going to 
select these Federal judges to serve a lifetime appointment?
  Ben Franklin led the forces on one side in an effort to try to curb 
the powers of this President we are going to establish to make sure we 
did not have a king in this country. And Ben Franklin and those who 
sided with him said the judges ought to be selected by the Senate, by 
the Congress.
  There was another school of thought that prevailed as well in the 
Constitutional Convention, those forces led by Alexander Hamilton. 
Hamilton and his allies said: No, the President should choose the 
people who are going to serve lifetime appointments to the Federal 
bench.
  In the end, a compromise was proposed and voted on. Here is the 
compromise: The President will nominate, with the advice and consent of 
the Senate, men and women to serve lifetime appointments to the Federal 
bench. That compromise was voted on. It was defeated. They wrangled for 
a while

[[Page 10924]]

longer and came back and they voted on the same compromise again. It 
was defeated. They went back and wrangled among themselves and came 
back and voted a third time on the same compromise. And it was 
accepted. That was 1787.
  A lot of years have passed since then, and this issue, this check and 
balance that was embedded in our Constitution, is one we have revisited 
over and over again. We did it this week. It was a big issue when 
Thomas Jefferson was President, the beginning of his second term when 
he sought to stack the courts and was rebuffed by his own party. That 
was in the 1800s. It was a big issue in the 1900s when FDR, at the 
beginning of his second term, sought to stack the courts, pack the 
courts. He, too, was rebuffed largely by his own party.
  Is this compromise hammered out over the last couple of weeks going 
to last forever? My guess is probably not. Just as this has been an 
issue of contention for over 200 years, it is probably going to be a 
source of controversy for a while longer.
  My friend from Texas, who spoke just before me, talked about the 
mistreatment of those who have been nominated to serve on the Federal 
bench by President Bush over the last 4 years. He mentioned a number, 
as it turns out, about 10 out of over 200, who were confirmed over the 
last 4 years. He mentions the 10 who, frankly, have had their lives 
disrupted, and in some cases were held up to poor commentary in the 
public and in the Senate with respect to their worthiness to serve on 
the bench for a lifetime appointment.
  I like to practice treating other people the way I want to be 
treated. I know most of us try to live by that credo. Sometimes we fall 
short. I know I do. But I think just to be fair we ought to go back to 
the first 4 years of when Bill Clinton was President. It was not just 5 
percent of his nominees who were not confirmed. Some 19 percent of his 
nominees were not confirmed. It was not that they were denied a vote on 
the floor, they never got out of committee.
  One person--one person--could put a hold, stop a nominee from even 
having a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. A handful of 
Senators in the committee could deny a nominee ever coming out of 
committee to be debated and voted on in the Senate. And somehow the 
idea that Bill Clinton could only get 81 percent of his nominees 
confirmed the first 4 years was OK for some, but yet a 95-percent 
approval rate for this President's nominees in his first 4 years was 
unacceptable. I see an irony there. I hope others do, too.
  Let me talk about the compromise that is before us. Most compromises 
I have been familiar with, frankly, do not leave either side especially 
happy for the final result. And that certainly is true in this case as 
well. But in the final analysis, the center of this body has held, 
barely, but it has held. A critical element of our Nation's system of 
checks and balances has been tested, but it still lives. For that, most 
of us should be happy--and if not happy, we should at least be 
relieved.
  I believe the path to a productive legislative session has been 
reopened, too. And almost like Lazarus rising from the grave, I think 
prospects for arriving at a middle ground on a whole range of issues we 
face has a new lease on life. We need to transfer the trust that I hope 
has grown out of this negotiation among the seven Democrats and seven 
Republicans. I salute them all for the good work they have done. I am 
not going to get into naming names, but they know who they are, and I 
am grateful to each of them.
  But what we need to do, as a body, as a Senate, is to transfer some 
of the trust that is a foundation of this agreement. We need to capture 
that trust and turn it to addressing some of the most pressing issues 
that face America: our huge and growing dependence on foreign oil, an 
enormous trade deficit and budget deficit, reining in the growth of 
health care and trying to make sure more people have health care 
available, winning this war on terrorism, and finding ways to improve 
our Nation's air quality. All those issues beg to be addressed.
  For this Senator, the good news that comes out of this agreement over 
the last 24 hours is that now we can turn to our Nation's business. We 
can get back to work. We need to. America wants us to.
  For the President and our friends in the White House, let me say, in 
going forward on judicial nominees, if you will consult with the 
Congress--Democrats and Republicans--we can actually approve most of 
those nominees. If this President will nominate mainstream judges, 
conservative judges--I expect them to be Republicans--if he will 
nominate those, for the most part, if they are not outside the 
mainstream, they will be approved. If the President will actually 
consult with the Senate, as the Constitution calls for, we will be 
better off, he will be better off, and, frankly, our Nation will be 
better off.
  The same applies to the legislative agenda that is now before us. For 
if the administration, the President, will work not just with 
Republicans but with Democrats, too, we can make real progress, and 
when we look back on the 109th Congress, we can say, with pride, that 
we got a lot done that needed to get done.
  I yield back the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, debate will continue 
until 11:40. The minority side has 20 minutes remaining. The majority 
side has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer, my neighbor 
across the Connecticut River.
  Mr. President, last night I spoke, praising the Senators on both 
sides of the aisle who came together to avert the so-called nuclear 
option. I see on the floor the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, 
the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think those Senators 
have made his and my work a lot easier. I also commend the 
distinguished Senator from Delaware for his comments.
  This President, with the compliance of the Republican majority, has 
tried to push the Senate across an unprecedented threshold that would 
forever change and weaken this body. This move would have stripped the 
minority of the crucial rights that have been a hallmark of this 
chamber, and it would have fundamentally altered the brilliant system 
of checks and balances designed by the Founders.
  This misguided bid for one-party rule, the nuclear option, has been 
deterred for now. This ill-advised power grab was thwarted through the 
work and commitment of a bipartisan group of 14 Senators who have 
prevented the Republican majority leader from pulling this potentially 
devastating trigger. Pursuant to that agreement, I expect a few 
Democrats who had previously voted against cloture on the Owen 
nomination in the last Congress to vote in favor of cloture today. I 
understand that they are taking this action to save the Senate from the 
nuclear option and to preserve the filibuster.
  This Republican tactic put the protection of the rights of the 
minority in this chamber in serious risk. That protection is 
fundamental to the Senate and to the Senate's ability to act as a check 
and balance in our national government. That protection is essential if 
we are to protect the independence of the Judiciary and the Judiciary 
is to remain a protector of the rights of all Americans against the 
overreaching of the political branches.
  I will continue to work in good faith, as I have always done, to 
fulfill the Senate's constitutionally-mandated role as a partner with 
the Executive branch in determining who will serve in the Judiciary. I 
urge all Senators to take these matters to heart and to redouble our 
efforts to invest our advice and consent responsibility with the 
seriousness and scrutiny it deserves. As I have said before, just as 
Democratic Senators alone could not avert the nuclear option, 
Democratic Senators alone cannot assure that the Senate fulfills its 
constitutional role with the check and balance on the Executive. I 
believe Republican Senators will also need to evaluate, with clear 
eyes, each

[[Page 10925]]

of the President's nominees for fitness. If they have doubts about the 
suitability of a nominee to a lifetime judicial appointment, well, they 
can no longer look the other way and wait for Democratic Senators to 
save them from a difficult vote. And there will be a number of 
difficult votes on the horizon on a number of problematic nominees. 
There may be even more.
  But I also remind everybody that while the Senate is supposed to 
serve as a check and balance, the whole process begins with the 
President. I have served here with six Presidents. Five of them have 
consulted with the Senate and worked with the Senate. President Ford, 
President Carter, President Reagan, former President Bush, and 
President Clinton have done that. Frankly, if this President would work 
with Senators on both sides of the aisle to identify and nominate 
consensus choices, we can easily add to the tally of 208 confirmations. 
If the White House will take the view that the President should be a 
uniter and not a divider, then we can make significant progress.
  The design of checks and balances envisioned by the Founders has 
served us well for over 200 years, and the agreement made last night 
has preserved it. Judicial nominations are for lifetime appointments to 
what has always been revered as an independent third branch of 
Government, one that while reliant on the balance between the executive 
and legislative branches, is actually controlled by neither.
  For more than two centuries, these checks and balances have been the 
source of our Government's stability. It has been its hedge against 
tyranny. We have to preserve them in the interests of the American 
people. We do that so the courts can be fair and independent. We should 
not look at our Federal judiciary as being a Democratic judiciary or a 
Republican judiciary. It should be independent of all of us because 
they are the backstop to protect the rights of all Americans against 
encroachment by the Government. And all Americans have a stake in that, 
no matter who may control the Government at any given time.
  The Senate remains available as a rudder that checks against abuse of 
power, and as a keel that defends the independence of the judiciary. As 
the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, noted 
last night, the Senate has answered the call sounded by Benjamin 
Franklin at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention by 
preserving our democracy and our Republic, as the Senate has been 
called upon to do so many times before.
  Now we have before us the controversial nomination of Priscilla Owen. 
I will probably speak to this nomination more after the cloture vote, 
the cloture vote which now is a foregone conclusion. For some reason we 
are still having it, but there is no question, of course, that the 
Senate will now invoke cloture.
  Three years ago, after reviewing her record, hearing her testimony, 
and evaluating her answers, I voted against her confirmation, and I 
explained at length the strong case against confirmation of this 
nomination. Nothing about her record or the reasons that led me then to 
vote against confirmation has changed.
  I believe she has shown herself over the last decade on the Texas 
Supreme Court to be an ends-oriented judicial activist, intent on 
reading her own policy views into the law. She has been the target of 
criticism by her conservative Republican colleagues on the court, in a 
variety of types of cases where the law did not fit her personal views, 
including in cases where she has consistently ruled for big business 
and corporate interests in cases against workers and consumers.
  The conservative Republican majority of the Texas Supreme Court has 
gone out of its way to criticize her and the dissents she joined in 
ways that are highly unusual and in ways which highlight her ends-
oriented activism.
  In FM Properties v. City of Austin, the majority called her dissent 
``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric.''
  In Montgomery Independent School District v. Davis, the majority, 
which included Alberto Gonzales and two other appointees of then-
Governor George W. Bush, is quite explicit in its view that Justice 
Owen's position disregards the law and that ``the dissenting opinion's 
misconception . . . stems from its disregard of the procedural elements 
the Legislature established,'' and that the ``dissenting opinion not 
only disregards the procedural limitations in the statute but takes a 
position even more extreme than that argued for by the board. . . .''
  In the case of In re Jane Doe, the majority includes an extremely 
unusual section explaining its view of the proper role of judges, 
admonishing the dissenters, including Justice Owen, for going beyond 
their duty to interpret the law in an attempt to fashion policy. In a 
separate concurrence, then-Justice Alberto Gonzales says that to 
construe the law as the dissent did ``would be an unconscionable act of 
judicial activism.''
  I understand he now says that when he wrote that opinion he was not 
referring to her. I recognize why he is saying that. Of course, he has 
to defend not Governor Bush's appointment but now President Bush's 
nomination. But a fair reading of his concurring opinion leads me to 
see it as a criticism of the dissenters, including Justice Owen. And he 
admitted as much in published statements in the New York Times before 
Justice Owen's first hearing before the Judiciary Committee.
  In the case of In re Jane Doe III, Justice Enoch writes specifically 
to rebuke Justice Owen and her fellow dissenters for misconstruing the 
legislature's definition of the sort of abuse that may occur when 
parents are notified of the minor's intent to have an abortion, saying:

       Abuse is abuse; it is neither to be trifled with nor its 
     severity to be second guessed.

  In Weiner v. Wasson, Priscilla Owen went out of her way to ignore 
Texas Supreme Court precedent to vote against a young man injured by a 
doctor's negligence. The young man was only 15 years old. Her 
conservative Republican colleagues on the court, led by then-Justice 
John Cornyn--now the junior Senator from Texas--lectured her about the 
importance of following that 12-year-old case and ruling in the boy's 
favor, calling the legal standard she proposed ``unworkable.''
  In Collins v. Ison-Newsome, yet another case where Justice Owen 
joined a dissent criticized by the majority, the court was offended by 
the dissenters' arguments. The majority says the dissenters agree the 
court's jurisdiction is limited, ``but then argues for the exact 
opposite proposition. . . . This argument defies the Legislature's 
clear and express limits on our jurisdiction.''
  These examples show a judge out of step with the conservative 
Republican majority of the Texas Supreme Court, a majority not afraid 
to explain the danger of Priscilla Owen's activist views.
  Justice Owen has made other bad decisions where she skews her 
decisions to show bias against consumers, against victims, and against 
just plain ordinary people, as she rules in favor of big business and 
corporations. In fact, according to a study conducted last year by the 
Texas Watch Foundation, a nonprofit consumer protection organization in 
Texas, over the last 6 years, Priscilla Owen has not dissented once 
from a majority decision favoring business interests over victims, but 
has managed to differ from the majority and dissent in 22 of the 68 
cases where the majority opinion was for the consumer.
  As one reads case after case, her legal views in so many cases 
involving statutory interpretation simply cannot be reconciled with the 
plain meaning of the statute, the legislative intent, or the majority's 
interpretation.
  This all leads to the conclusion that she sets out to justify a 
preconceived idea of what the law ought to mean. This is not an 
appropriate way for a judge to make decisions, but it is a way for a 
judge to make law from the bench--an activist judge.
  Justice Owen's activism and extremism is noteworthy in a variety of 
cases, including those dealing with business interests, malpractice, 
access to public information, employment discrimination and Texas 
Supreme Court

[[Page 10926]]

jurisdiction, in which she writes against individual plaintiffs time 
and time again, in seeming contradiction of the law as written. A few 
examples of this include:
  FM Properties v. City of Austin, where Justice Owen showed her 
willingness to rule in favor of large private landowners against the 
clear public interest in maintaining a fair regulatory process and 
clean water. Her dissent, which the majority characterized as, 
``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric,'' was an attempt to favor 
big landowners. At her first hearing, and since, Justice Owen and her 
supporters on the Committee have tried to recast this case as something 
more innocent, but at the time she wrote her dissent, Justice Owen was 
certainly clear about the meaning of this case--property rights for 
corporations.
  GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, is another example where Justice Owen 
wrote in favor of GTE in a lawsuit by employees for intentional 
infliction of emotional distress. Despite the majority's recitation of 
an exhaustive list of sickening behavior by the supervisor, and its 
clear application of Texas law to those facts, Justice Owen wrote a 
concurring opinion to explain that the conduct was not, as the standard 
requires, so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to 
go beyond all possible bounds of decency. The majority opinion shows 
Justice Owen's concurrence advocating a point of view that ignores the 
facts in evidence in order to reach a predetermined outcome in the 
corporation's favor.
  City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, Justice Owen dissented from a 
majority opinion and, again, it is difficult to justify her views other 
than as based on a desire to reach a particular outcome. In this case, 
she seeks to shield government decision-making from public view.
  Quantum Chemical v. Toennies, another troubling case where Justice 
Owen joined a dissent advocating an activist interpretation of a 
clearly written statute, this time in the context of employment 
discrimination. The majority concluded that they must rely on the plain 
language of the statute as amended, which could not be any clearer that 
under Title VII discrimination can be shown to be a motivating factor, 
contrary to Justice Owen's more activist view.
  Mr. President, I said time and time again that when somebody walks 
into a Federal court, they should not have to say, I may be treated one 
way because I am a Republican and a different way because I am a 
Democrat, or one way because I am a plaintiff and a different way 
because I am a defendant, or one way because I am rich, and a different 
way because I am poor. They should be treated on the merits of the 
case, no matter who they are.
  In Priscilla Owen's case, it was almost predetermined how she would 
rule based upon who you are. The rich and powerful are protected. The 
poor or those hurt by the rich and powerful--she is going to rule 
against you. This is judicial activism.
  After all these years, I am sure the President will get the votes to 
put Priscilla Owen on the court. But would it not have been better to 
have nominated somebody who would unite us and not divide us?
  Last night, 14 Senators--7 Republicans and 7 Democrats--said: We will 
protect the Senate, actually protect the Constitution, protect advice 
and consent, and protect the checks and balances by giving the death 
knell to this so-called nuclear option. That was a good first step. But 
I urge the President to look at what was also said in that agreement. 
They called upon the President to now finally work with Senators from 
both parties in these lifetime appointments. No political party should 
own our Federal courts. In fact, no political party should be able to 
control our Federal courts. Let us work together to have courts that 
actually work, that are independent of the executive, independent of 
being swayed, and are truly independent. We can do that and call on the 
President to do what every President since I have been here--the five 
before him--has always done, and that is work with both Republicans and 
Democrats, work to unite us, not divide us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Member time is 
reserved until 11:40, and the time between 11:40 and 12 o'clock is 
reserved for both the majority and minority leaders.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the balance of my time to the 
Democratic leader to use as he wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the couple of 
extra minutes be divided between the majority leader and me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in my remarks this morning, I will speak 
very briefly about the Priscilla Owen nomination and, more generally, 
about the negotiations that led to the defeat of the so-called nuclear 
option. As I said this morning, the nuclear option is off the table, 
and we should stop talking about it after today. I continue, though, to 
oppose the nomination of Priscilla Owen for the U.S. Court of Appeals.
  As a member of the Texas Supreme Court, Justice Owen has consistently 
ruled for big business, corporate interests, and cases against workers 
and consumers. Her colleagues on the Texas court, including the man who 
is now Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, have 
criticized her decisions. Judge Gonzales even called one of her 
opinions an act of ``unconscionable judicial activism.'' In case after 
case, her record marks her as a judge who is willing to make law from 
the bench rather than following the language of the statute and the 
intent of the legislature. Even on the conservative Supreme Court of 
Texas, Justice Owen is a frequent dissenter, and her opinions reveal an 
extreme ideological approach to the law.
  As a result of the agreement announced last night, it is clear that 
this nominee will receive an up-or-down vote. I intend to vote against 
her confirmation. I urge my colleagues to do so as well. I specifically 
urge my Republican colleagues to render an independent judgment on 
this, and the other nominations will follow in the months to come. I am 
confident they will.
  If Justice Owen is confirmed as a Federal judge, I hope she surprises 
those of us who have fought her nomination. Perhaps her experience as a 
judicial nominee has exposed her to a broader range of views, and that 
experience may make her more sensitive to concerns regarding privacy, 
civil rights, and consumer rights. I have never questioned her 
intellectual capabilities.
  The agreement that will allow Justice Owen to receive an up-or-down 
vote also had the effect of taking the nuclear option off the table for 
this Congress and, I think, in our lifetime. I wish to review what I 
believe was at stake in this debate. The agreement makes clear that the 
Senate rules have not changed. The filibuster remains available to the 
Senate minority, whether it be Democrat or Republican.
  Last night, the seven Democrats agreed that filibusters will be used 
only in extraordinary circumstances. In my view, the fact that there 
have been so few out of the 218 nominations in the last 4 years means 
that filibusters already are rare.
  In any event, the agreement provides that ``each signatory must use 
his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether 
[extraordinary] circumstances exist.'' This, of course, is a subjective 
test, as it always has been.
  The 14 Democrats and Republicans who entered into the agreement last 
night, and the rest of us who were prepared to vote against the nuclear 
option, stood for the principles of extended debate, minority rights, 
and constitutional checks and balances. For 200 years, the Senate rules 
embodying those principles have protected our liberties and our 
freedoms. Those rules have not made life easy for Presidents and 
parties in power, but that is the way our Constitution was written, and 
that is good.
  Most every occupant of the White House, most every majority on 
Capitol Hill, has grown frustrated with the need to build consensus 
instead of ruling by their own desires. But that is

[[Page 10927]]

precisely what our Founding Fathers intended. That is our Constitution.
  Those Founders created this body as a place secure from the winds of 
whim, a place for deliberation and honorable compromise. It is why 
Nevada, with its little over 2 million people, has as much to say in 
this body as California, which has 35 million people. It is why 
sometimes we are governed not by the principles of ``one man, one 
vote'' but by the principles of one person who rises with a voice of 
conscience and courage.
  When Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack our 
courts, patriots of both parties put aside their personal interests to 
protect our American rights and rules. In Caro's definitive work, 
``Master of the Senate,'' he has a wonderful 10 pages where he talks 
about Roosevelt's attempt to pack the court. It is so revealing. 
Roosevelt calls Senate leaders to the White House--Democratic leaders--
and the President didn't live in the White House, as they do now. His 
Vice President, James Garner, a former Senator, walked out of that 
meeting shaking his head and said that the President will not get his 
support on this, and he didn't. He didn't get the support of a majority 
of the Democrats. When Jefferson and Roosevelt tried to pack our 
courts, it didn't work because Members of their own parties rose up 
against them. They were both Democrats.
  Nothing in the advice and consent clause of the Constitution mandates 
that a nominee receive a majority vote, or even a vote of any kind. 
According to the Congressional Research Service, over 500 judicial 
nominees since 1945--18 percent of all judicial nominees--were never 
voted on by the full Senate. Most recently, over 60 of President 
Clinton's judicial nominees were denied an up-or-down vote. In 
contrast, we have approved 208 of President Bush's 218 nominees.
  Last night, when I came to the floor, I said it is a happy night for 
me because the 8 years of the Clinton judicial situation are gone. I 
said last night that the 4 years of problems with the Bush 
administration, as it relates to judges, are gone. Why? Because we are 
going to start legislating as Senators should. If there is a problem 
with a judge, that issue will be raised.
  There will be occasions, although very infrequent, where a filibuster 
will take place. That is what the Senate is all about.
  The difference between a 95-percent confirmation rate and a 100-
percent rate is what this country is all about. That 5 percent reflects 
the moderating influence and spirit and openness made possible by the 
advice and consent clause of our Constitution.
  When our Founders pledged their lives and fortunes and their sacred 
honor to the cause of our Revolution, it was not simply to get rid of 
King George III. It was because they had a vision of democracy. James 
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote:

       The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive, and 
     judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many--
     and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective--may 
     justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

  Stripping away these important checks and balances would have meant 
the Senate becomes merely a rubber-
stamp for the President. It would have meant one political party, be it 
Republicans today or Democrats tomorrow, could effectively seize 
control of our Nation's highest courts. It would have removed the 
checks on the President's power, meaning one man sitting in the White 
House could personally hand out lifetime jobs whose rulings on our 
basic rights can last forever.
  It is too much power for one person. It is too much power for one 
President. It is too much power for one political party. It is not how 
America works.
  Our democracy works when majority rules not with a fist but with an 
outstretched hand that brings people together. The filibuster is there 
to guarantee this.
  The success of the nuclear option would have marked another sad, long 
stride down an ever more slippery slope toward partisan crossfire and a 
loss of our liberties. Instead, this is the moment we turned around and 
began to climb up the hill toward the common goal of national purpose 
and rebuilding of America's promise. America owes a debt of gratitude 
to the 14 Senators who allowed us to be here today.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the distinguished 
Democratic leader for his comments and noting with particularity his 
statement that the use of the filibuster will be occasional and very 
infrequent. I think that characterization is very important for the 
future of the Senate in the consideration of judicial nominations.
  The term ``extraordinary circumstances'' does not lend itself to any 
easy interpretation. But when the Democratic leader asserts that this 
term means occasional and very infrequent, it is very reassuring.
  The Senator from Nevada went on to say this wipes away 8 years of 
Clinton and 4 years of the second President Bush. That puts the whole 
controversy, in my judgment, into context, because what we have been 
talking about in the course of these filibusters has been the pattern 
of payback which began in the last 2 years of President Reagan's 
administration when Democrats won control of the Senate and the 
Judiciary Committee, where the nominating process was slowed down, and 
4 years of President George H. W. Bush. Then it was exacerbated during 
the administration of President Clinton when we Republicans won the 
Senate in the 1994 election. And for the last 6 years of President 
Clinton's tenure, we had a situation where some 60 judges were bottled 
up in committee, which was about the same as a filibuster.
  I think it is worth noting that both Senator Frist, our Republican 
leader, and Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, are entitled to 
plaudits, because a week ago today, late in the afternoon in a room off 
the first floor, a few steps from where we are at the present time, the 
leaders met with so-called Republican moderates and Democratic 
moderates.
  While not quite the imprimatur of propriety, their presence signified 
they knew what was going on, that they were prepared to participate in 
it, and that, again, while it was not quite the Good Housekeeping stamp 
of approval, they were interested to see what occurred.
  In a series of floor statements on this issue, as the Congressional 
Record will show, I had urged the leaders to remove the party loyalty 
straitjacket from Senators so the Senators could vote their consciences 
because of the consistent comments I heard in the corridors and in the 
cloakrooms by both Republicans and Democrats that they did not like 
where we were headed; that Democrats were not pleased with this pattern 
of filibusters, and Republicans were not pleased with the prospect of 
the so-called constitutional or nuclear option.
  And finally, in effect, that did happen when a group of moderate 
Senators got together, totaling 14 in number, as the parties signatory 
to the memorandum of understanding of last night, to forge an 
arrangement where the very important constitutional checks and 
balances, the very important constitutional separation of powers, would 
be maintained.
  When we talk about the delicate balance of separation of powers, the 
constitutional scholars traditionally talk about it as so-called play 
in the joints. Had there been a formal determination of a rule change 
so that 51 Senators could cut off debate, that would have materially 
affected the delicate separation of powers where the President would 
have had much greater authority, be he a Republican President or a 
Democratic President.
  Similarly, had the so-called constitutional or nuclear option been 
defeated, then I think it is fair to say the minority party--Democrats 
in this situation--would have been emboldened to go further in the use 
of the filibuster.
  The nominees who have been subjected to the filibuster, in my 
judgment, have been held hostage, pawns in this escalating spiral of 
exacerbation by both sides.

[[Page 10928]]

  In my 25 years in the Senate, during all of which I have served on 
the Judiciary Committee, I have seen our committee and this body 
routinely confirm judicial nominees who were the equivalents of those 
who have been filibustered here. These nominees have every bit the 
qualification of circuit judges who have been confirmed in the past.
  Priscilla Owen, who is the specific nominee in question, would have 
been confirmed as a matter of routine had she not been caught up in 
this partisan battle. She has an extraordinary academic record. She was 
cum laude from Baylor both for an undergraduate degree and a law 
degree, scored the highest on the Texas bar exam, worked 17 years with 
a very prestigious law firm in Texas, served 11 years on the Texas 
State Supreme Court, earned well-qualified ratings from the American 
Bar Association, and is personally known to President Bush, who speaks 
of her in the most complimentary terms.
  The senior Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, has been a 
personal friend for years and knows her intimately. She speaks of her 
glowingly. She shepherded her to many private meetings with Senators. I 
spoke with Justice Owen at some length and was very much impressed with 
her on the academic level, on the professional level, and on the 
personal level.
  Our colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Senator John Cornyn, served 
with her on the Texas Supreme Court and, again, spoke of her in 
outstanding terms.
  I have spoken at length about Justice Owen in the past, and I would 
simply incorporate by reference the comments which I made which appear 
in the Congressional Record for May 18 of this year, where I cited a 
selection of cases showing her judicial balance and showing her 
excellent record on the Texas Supreme Court.
  Mr. President, we have been joined by, as I turn around, two 
distinguished Senators--one a current Member of this body, Senator Bill 
Frist, the other a former Member of this body, Senator Alfonse D'Amato. 
I did not recognize him at first because he was not in his pink suit.
  One day, in the back row, Alfonse D'Amato appeared and sang E-I-E-I-O 
in a pink suit. There was some comment in the Chamber about how much it 
improved his appearance. I did not agree with this.
  I have a very short story. I had a brother who was 10 years older 
than I. One day he came down from the drugstore to the junkyard where I 
worked. He said: Arlen, I was just at Russell Drug. Down there they 
were saying you weren't fit to eat with the pigs. But my brother said: 
I stuck up for you, Arlen. I said you were. So when I see Alfonse 
D'Amato on the Senate floor, I remember those good times.
  Now I yield to the distinguished majority leader, whose time I hope I 
have not unduly encroached upon. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few moments, we will vote to conclude 
debate on the nomination of Judge Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals. It has been over 4 years since the Senate began 
consideration of Justice Owen for this position, and the Senate over 
that time has thoroughly and exhaustively investigated, looked at, 
examined, and debated Judge Owen's nomination.
  She has endured 9 hours of committee hearings, more than 500 
questions, and 22 days--it is interesting, 22 days. That is more than 
all sitting Supreme Court Justices combined have had on the floor of 
the Senate--all sitting Supreme Court Justices combined. We have had 
Priscilla Owen's nomination debated on this floor for more days. There 
has been more than 100 hours of floor debate. Now finally, after more 
than 4 years of waiting, Judge Owen will receive a fair up-or-down vote 
on the floor of the Senate.
  As her critics now appear to be concede, Judge Owen is a mainstream 
candidate, who is thoughtful, who is dignified, and imminently 
qualified. Her academic and professional qualifications are 
outstanding. The American Bar Association unanimously--unanimously--
rated her as well qualified, its highest possible rating. She was 
reelected to the Texas Supreme Court with 84 percent of the vote. She 
is supported by Republicans and Democrats on the Texas Supreme Court. 
She has been endorsed by every major newspaper in her State of Texas.
  Moreover, in the face of continuous, sometimes vicious, attacks and 
distortions of her record in the nominations process, Judge Owen has 
shown extraordinary patience with this body. Despite 4 years of attacks 
on her integrity, Priscilla Owen has quietly, has patiently, has 
gracefully waited for an up-or-down vote.
  Priscilla Owen has worked hard, played by the rules, faithfully 
interpreted the law and gained the respect of her colleagues and 
constituents. We cannot ask for more from a judicial nominee. It is 
time to close our debate. It is time to give Justice Owen an up-or-down 
vote on the floor of the Senate.
  Today's vote will allow that up-or-down vote. It will affirm each 
Senator's right to weigh the facts and vote his or her conscience up or 
down, yes or no, confirmed or rejected. It is as simple as that. It is 
about principle. It is about fairness. It is about our constitutional 
duty to give advice and consent.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12 
o'clock having arrived, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Executive 
     Calendar No. 71, the nomination of Priscilla Owen, of Texas, 
     to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.
         Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, Trent Lott, Lamar Alexander, 
           Jon Kyl, Jim Talent, Wayne Allard, Richard G. Lugar, 
           John Ensign, C.S. Bond, Norm Coleman, Saxby Chambliss, 
           James Inhofe, Mel Martinez, Jim DeMint, George Allen, 
           Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Cornyn.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Priscilla Richman Owen, of Texas, to be United States 
Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, shall be brought 
to a close? Under the rule, the yeas and nays are mandatory. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Under the rules and precedents of the Senate, how many 
votes are required to invoke cloture and end debate on the pending 
nomination?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is there an answer to my parliamentary inquiry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURKIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 81, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 127 Ex.]

                                YEAS--81

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu

[[Page 10929]]


     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Biden
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Murray
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Stabenow

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 81, the nays are 
18. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________




                                 RECESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:30 
having arrived, the Senate will stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 
p.m.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:30 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and 
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. 
Voinovich).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




NOMINATION OF PRISCILLA RICHMAN OWEN TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE 
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I read from the King James version of the 
Holy Bible, from the 22nd chapter of Proverbs, the 28th verse:

       Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have 
     set.

  Mr. President, in his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln 
observed that:

       With malice toward none; with charity for all; with 
     firmness in the right, as God give us to see the right, let 
     us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the 
     nation's wounds. . . .

  Mr. President, I have always believed that the Senate, by its nature, 
attracts and probably also creates men and women of the quality and 
character who are able to step up when faced with crises that threaten 
the ship of state, to calm the dangerous seas which, from time to time, 
threaten to dash our Republic against rocky shoals and jagged shores.
  The Senate proved it to be true again yesterday, when 14 Members--
from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats; 14 Members--of 
this revered institution came together to avert the disaster referred 
to as the ``nuclear option'' or the ``constitutional option''--these 
men and women of great courage.
  As William Gladstone said, in referring to the Senate of the United 
States, the Senate is

     that remarkable body, the most remarkable of all the 
     inventions of modern politics.

  I thank all of those Republicans and Democrats who worked together to 
keep faith with the Framers and the Founding Fathers. We have kept the 
faith with those whose collective vision gave us this marvelous piece 
of work, the Constitution of the United States. Thank God--thank God--
that this work has been done and that it has been preserved, that a 
catastrophe has been averted.
  Article II, section 2, of the Constitution gives to the President the 
power to nominate, and ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the 
Senate,'' to ``appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other 
Officers of the United States. . . .''
  There are two parts to that phrase: the ``advice'' on the one hand, 
and the ``consent'' on the other, and both must be present before any 
President can appoint any nominee to the Supreme Court or any other 
Federal court. It is, therefore, a shared responsibility between the 
U.S. Senate and the President of the United States.
  By its agreement yesterday, the Senate is keeping that construct 
alive, this shared responsibility between the President of the United 
States, on the one hand, and the Senate of the United States, on the 
other.
  The agreement that was obtained yesterday by the cooperation between 
and among the 14 Members of the Senate--representing Republicans and 
Democrats--it was that agreement that reminds us of the words of our 
Constitution, by encouraging the President of the United States, on the 
one hand, to consult with the Senate of the United States, on the 
other. In other words, the Senate will be in on the takeoff, meaning 
prior to sending up his nominees for our consideration. In recent 
times--and by that I mean under Presidents of both parties--there has 
not been all that much consultation by the President with the Senate.
  So here we are, in the Senate, offering the hand of partnership to 
the Chief Executive and saying: Consult with us. That is what the 
Framers intended, that the President of the United States should 
consult with the Senate. You don't have to take our advice, but here it 
is. And by considering that advice, it only stands to reason that any 
President will be more assured that his nominees will enjoy a kinder 
reception in the Senate.
  The agreement, which references the need for ``advice and consent,'' 
as contained in the Constitution, proves once again, as has been true 
for over 200 years, that our revered Constitution is not simply a dry 
piece of parchment. It is a living document.
  Yesterday's agreement was a real-life illustration of how this 
historical document continues to be vital in our daily lives. It 
inspires, it teaches, and yesterday it helped the country and the 
Senate avoid a serious catastrophe.
  Mr. President, for this reason and others, I ask that at the end of 
my remarks the agreement reached by the 14 Senators be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do this so that we in the Senate and the 
President may all have a way of easily revisiting the text of that 
agreement for future reference.
  On the heels of this agreement, I believe that we should now move 
forward, propelled by its positive energy, in a new direction. We 
should make every effort to restore reason to the politically partisan 
fervor that has overtaken our Senate, this city, and our country. We 
must stop arguing and start legislating.
  Divisive political agendas are not America's goals. The right course 
lies someplace in the middle. It is our job to work as elected 
representatives of a reasonable people to do what is right, regardless 
of threats from any of the angry groups that seem dedicated to 
intimidation. The skeptics, the cynics, the doubters, the Pharisees, 
those who are intoxicated by the juice of sour grapes did not prevail 
and must not prevail. The 14 Republican and Democratic Senators rose 
above those who do not wish to see accord but prefer discord.
  Chaucer's ``Canterbury Tales''--we have all read Chaucer's 
``Canterbury Tales'' in high school--contains ``The Pardoner's Tale.''
  The story tells about the journey by the pilgrims to Canterbury, to 
the shrine of Canterbury. The scene took place in Flanders, where once 
there sat drinking in a tavern three young men who were much given to 
folly. As they sat, they heard a small bell clink before a corpse that 
was being carried to the grave. Whereupon, one of the three called to 
his knave and ordered him to go and find out the name of the corpse 
that was passing by.
  The boy answered that he already knew and that it was an old comrade 
of the roisterers who had been slain, while drunk, by an unseen thief 
called ``Death,'' who had slain others in recent days.

[[Page 10930]]

  And so out into the road the three young ruffians went in search of 
this monster called Death. They came upon an old man and seized him, 
and with rough language they demanded that he tell them where they 
could find this cowardly adversary who was taking the lives of their 
good friends around the countryside.
  The old man pointed to a great oak tree on a nearby knoll, saying, 
``There, under that tree you will find Death,'' that monster. In a 
drunken rage, the three roisterers set off in a run until they came to 
the tree, and there they found a pile of gold--eight basketfuls of 
florins, newly minted, round, gold coins. Forgotten was the monster 
called Death, as the three pondered their good fortune. And they 
decided that they should remain with the gold until nightfall, when 
they would divide it among themselves and take it to their respective 
homes. It would be unsafe, they reasoned, to attempt to do so in broad 
daylight, as they might be fallen upon by thieves who would take their 
treasure from them.
  It was proposed that the three draw straws, and the person who drew 
the shortest straw would go into the nearby village and purchase some 
bread and wine and cheese, which they could then enjoy as they whiled 
away the daylight hours. So off toward the village the young man who 
drew the shortest straw went. When he was out of sight, the remaining 
two decided that there was no good reason why this fortune, this pile 
of gold, should be divided among three individuals. So one of them said 
to the other, ``When he returns, you throw your arm around him as if in 
good sport, as in jest, and I will rive him with my dagger, and with 
your dagger, you can do the same. Then all of this gold will be divided 
not among three of us but just between two of us--you and me.''
  Meanwhile, while the two were planning the demise of the third, the 
youngest rogue, as he made his way into the town, thought to himself 
what a shame it would be that the gold would be divided among three, 
when it just as well could be so easily belong only to the ownership of 
one, himself. Therefore, in town the young man went directly to an 
apothecary and asked to be sold some poison for the large rats and a 
polecat that had been killing his chickens. The apothecary--the 
pharmacist--quickly provided some poison, saying that as much as 
equaled only a tiny grain of wheat would result immediately in sudden 
death for the creature that drank the mixture.
  Having purchased the poison, the young villain crossed the street to 
a winery, where he purchased three bottles--two for his friends, one 
for himself. After he left the village, he sat down, opened two bottles 
of wine and deposited an equal portion in each, and then returned to 
the oak tree, where the two older villains did as they had planned. One 
threw his arm, as if in jest, around the shoulders of the third, and 
both buried their daggers in him. He fell dead on the pile of gold. The 
other two villains then sat down, broke the bread, cut the cheese, and 
opened the two bottles of wine. Each took a good, deep swallow, and 
then, suffering a most excruciating pain, both fell dead upon the pile 
of gold and upon the body of the third. So there they were across the 
pile of gold, all three of them dead.
  Their avarice, their greed for gain, their love of material things 
had destroyed them. There is a lesson here in Chaucer's Tales, as given 
to us by ``The Pardoner.'' The strong temptation for political 
partisanship that has prevailed in the Senate can tear this Senate 
apart and can tear the Nation apart and confront all of us with 
destruction, so that in the end we three--the President, the Senate, 
and the people--will all be destroyed, as it were.
  So we almost saw that happen here on the Senate floor--until 
yesterday, when that catastrophe, looming as it was before the Senate, 
was averted. I applaud the fact that the center, the anchor, held, and 
we stood together for the good of the country against mean-spirited, 
shallow, political ends.
  Mr. President, I implore all of us to endeavor to lift our eyes to 
the higher things. We can perform some much needed healing on the body 
politic. If we can come together in a dignified way to orderly and 
expeditiously move forward on these nominations, perhaps we can yet 
salvage a bit of respect and trust from the American people for all of 
us, for the Senate, and for our institutions of free government.
  We have a duty, at this critical time, to rise above politics as 
usual, in which we savage one another, and in so doing, destroy 
ourselves, like the three villains in ``The Pardoner's Tale.''
  Let us put the Nation first. The American people want us to do that. 
In the long run, that is how we will be judged and, more importantly, 
it is how the Senate will be judged.
  It is easy to tear down; it is difficult to build.

     I saw them tearing a building down,
     A group of men in a busy town.
     With a ``Ho, Heave, Ho and a lusty yell,
     They swung a beam and the sidewall fell.

     I said to the foreman, ``Are these men skilled?
     The type you would hire if you had to build.''
     He laughed, and then he said, ``No indeed,
     Just common labor is all I need;
     I can easily erect in a day or two,
     That which takes builders years to do.''

     I said to myself as I walked away,
     ``Which of these roles am I trying to play?
     Am I a builder who works with care,
     Building my life by the rule and square?
     Am I shaping my deeds by well-laid plan,
     Patiently building the best I can?
     Or am I a wrecker who walks the town
     Content with the labor of tearing down.''

  Mr. President, it is easy to tear down, but it takes a long time to 
build. We have been 217 years in building this Senate, making it what 
it was intended to be by the Framers who wrote it 219 years ago, who 
established three equal coordinate branches of Government, who 
established a separation of powers, who established checks and balances 
in this Constitution of the United States.
  The work of those Framers and the work of the larger group of 
Founders took 219 years. It was about to be destroyed in a single day, 
this day. But thank God 14 Senators from both sides of the aisle met 
and rose above partisan politics and kept the faith with the Framers 
and with the Founders so that our posterity might enjoy the blessings 
of liberty, the blessings of freedom of speech, the roots of which go 
all the way back to the reign of Henry IV, who reigned from 1399 to 
1413 and who in 1407 proclaimed that the members of Parliament--the 
House of Lords and the House of Commons--could speak freely and without 
fear.
  And those words were written into the Declaration of Rights, which 
declaration was submitted to William III of Orange and Mary, a 
Declaration of Rights which included freedom of speech in Parliament. 
That declaration was presented on February 13, 1689, to William III and 
Mary. They both accepted it and were then proclaimed by the House of 
Commons joint sovereigns of the nation.
  Then, on December 18, 1689, those words were included in a statute, 
the English Bill of Rights--freedom of speech, the roots going back a 
long way. That freedom of speech then was provided to those of us in 
the Senate, provided by the Constitution, and since 1806, when the 
provision for the previous question was discarded upon the 
recommendation of Vice President Aaron Burr, since 1806 that provision 
for the previous question or the sudden cutting off debate was 
discarded. Since 1806, until the year 1917, the year in which I was 
born during the administration of Woodrow Wilson, that freedom of 
speech has prevailed in the Senate, and it has lived since then except 
for unanimous consent agreements and the cloture provision which was 
first agreed to in 1917, the cloture provision shutting off debate 
under the rules of the Senate.
  Freedom of speech has reigned in this body, and it still lives, 
thanks again to the 14 Republicans and Democrats who rose above 
politics yesterday and came forward with this accord.
  So, Mr. President, let us be true to the faith of our fathers and to 
the expectation of those who founded this Republic. The coming days 
will test us again and again, but let us go forward together hoping 
that in the end, the Senate will be perceived as having stood the test, 
and may we, both Republicans and Democrats and Independents, when our 
work is done, be judged

[[Page 10931]]

by the American people and by the pages of history as having done our 
duty and as having done it well.
  Our supreme duty is not to any particular person, not to any 
particular President, not to any political party, but to the 
Constitution, to the people of the Nation, and to the future of this 
Republic. It is in that spirit that we may do well to remember the 
words of Benjamin Hill, a great Senator, a great orator from the State 
of Georgia, his words being inscribed on a statue in Atlanta, GA, as 
they are and as they appear today upon that monument:

       Who saves his country saves himself, saves all things, and 
     all things saved do bless him. Who let's his country die dies 
     himself ignobly, and all things dying curse him.

  Remember that ancient proverb: Remove not the ancient landmark, which 
thy fathers have set.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

                               Exhibit 1

          Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations

       We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, 
     rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and 
     Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an 
     understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust 
     and confidence, related to pending and future judicial 
     nominations in the 109th Congress.
       This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the 
     currently pending judicial nominations; Part II relates to 
     subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President 
     and to be acted upon by the Senate's Judiciary Committee.
       We have agreed to the following:


          Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

       A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke 
     cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers 
     Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and 
     Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
       B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment 
     to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial 
     nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th 
     Circuit).


              Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

       A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their 
     responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the 
     United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should 
     only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and 
     each signatory must use his or her own discretion and 
     judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
       B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing 
     commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the 
     rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to 
     be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the 
     Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by 
     means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
       We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United 
     States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to 
     consultation between the Senate and the President with regard 
     to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We 
     encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with 
     members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior 
     to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for 
     consideration.
       Such a return to the early practices of our government may 
     well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately 
     accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
       We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the 
     traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators 
     seek to uphold.
         E. Benjamin Nelson, Mike DeWine, Joe Lieberman, Susan 
           Collins, Mark Pryor, Lindsey Graham, Lincoln Chafee, 
           John McCain, John Warner, Robert C. Byrd, Mary 
           Landrieu, Olympia Snowe, Ken Salazar, and Daniel 
           Inouye.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the time I 
consume come out of my time postcloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


         Retirement of Colonel Russ Howard, United States Army

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 
accomplishments of Colonel Russ Howard, head of the department of 
social sciences and director of the Combating Terrorism Center at West 
Point. Colonel Howard is retiring June 3, 2005, after 37 years of 
Active and Reserve military service.
  In his previous position, he was the deputy department head of the 
department of social sciences. Prior to that, Colonel Howard was an 
Army chief of staff fellow at the Center for International Affairs at 
Harvard University. Formerly, Colonel Howard was the commander of the 
1st Special Forces Group (Airborne) at Fort Lewis, WA. Other recent 
assignments include assistant to the Special Representative to the 
Secretary General during UNOSOM II in Somalia, deputy chief of staff 
for I Corps, and chief of staff and deputy commander for the Combined 
Joint Task force, Haiti/Haitian Advisory Group. He also served as the 
administrative assistant to ADM Stansfield Turner and as a special 
assistant to the commander of SOUTHCOM.
  When Colonel Howard was commander of 3rd Battalion, 1st Special 
Warfare Training Group (Airborne) at Fort Bragg, NC, he developed the 
curriculum for the first ever graduate degree program for the Civil 
Affairs and Psychological Operations officers.
  Prior to Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, Colonel Howard took a 
mobile training team to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to train the ``lost 
boys,'' newly appointed Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations 
officers already deployed to the Persian Gulf.
  The newly trained officers performed superbly during operations and 
3rd Battalion won the Army Superior Unit Award, largely due to the 
efforts and foresight of Colonel Howard.
  As a newly commissioned officer, a much younger officer, Colonel 
Howard served as ``A'' team commander in the 7th Special Forces Group 
from 1970 to 1972.
  He left the Active component and served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 
1972 to 1980. During this period, he served as an overseas manager, 
American International Underwriters Melbourne, Australia, and China 
tour manager and Canadian Pacific Airlines.
  He was recalled to active duty in 1980 and served initially in Korea 
as an infantry company commander. Subsequent assignments included 
classified project officer, U.S. Army 1st Special Operations Command at 
Fort Bragg, and operations officer and company commander 1st Battalion, 
1st Special Forces Group in Okinawa, Japan.
  Colonel Howard earned a bachelor of science degree in industrial 
management from San Jose State University, bachelor of arts degree in 
Asian studies from the University of Maryland, a master of arts degree 
in international management from the Monterey Institute of 
International Studies, and a masters of public administration degree 
from Harvard University.
  Colonel Howard was an assistant professor of social sciences at the 
U.S. Military Academy and a senior service college fellow at the 
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.
  During his extraordinary career of public service, Colonel Russ 
Howard was a dedicated leader, enlightened visionary, effective 
operator, and exemplary role model for cadets, soldiers, and civilians.
  For the past 7 years, he made enormous contributions to the U.S. 
Military Academy, its graduates, and to the Nation through his 
relentless pursuits of excellence in the department of social sciences 
and his advancement of education, research, and policy development in 
the global war on terror.
  He was the right person at the right time in exactly the right job as 
the Academy and the Nation responded to the events of 9/11 and the 
global war on terror. Building on his extraordinary skills as a 
researcher and educator, he knew the intellectual response to the war 
on terror would have to be as significant as the operational response 
and set a course for the department and the Academy to lead this 
response.
  Building on an exceptional experience as a Special Forces officer who 
commanded at every level from team leader to Special Forces Group, he 
was

[[Page 10932]]

able to integrate the intellectual issues of understanding terrorism 
with the practical issues of countering terrorism and include them in 
the curriculum, and eventually led to the establishment of the 
Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.
  He inspired support from the academy leadership, from General-retired 
Wayne Downing, Mr. Vinnie Viola, Mr. Ross Perot, and many others, so 
that the U.S. Military Academy has become the international leader in 
undergraduate terrorism education and research.
  Simultaneously, Colonel Howard enhanced all aspects of the academy 
and the Department of Social Sciences by supporting a robust teaching 
program. He taught more than 15 different courses, created 4 new ones, 
published 3 books and 15 articles, and encouraged and cultivated 
resources for other faculty to follow his example.
  His support for faculty and cadet development through the 
scholarship, debate, model U.N., domestic affairs forum, finance forum, 
sports, and a myriad of other activities was exceptional. Most 
importantly, he is a trusted, caring, concerned, and dedicated leader 
who evokes the best from everybody with whom he comes in contact.
  It has been my privilege to know Colonel Howard for many years, to 
respect him as a soldier and a scholar, and to at this moment 
congratulate him on a career of exceptional service to the Army and to 
the Nation. As he parts for other venues and other responsibilities, I 
wish him well.
  I yield back my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Embryonic Stem Cell Research

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an issue that has 
been worked on in the country for some period of time. Soon, a House 
vote will take place on embryonic stem cell research. The issue that 
will soon be voted on in the House--and may come before this body--is 
whether to allow the taxpayer funding of destruction of young human 
life.
  This legislation being considered in the House of Representatives 
would take young human embryos, would provide taxpayer dollars to 
destroy these embryos and conduct research on the stem cells derived 
from them. I believe we all have a duty to protect innocent life. We 
have a duty and a responsibility to look out for the downtrodden, those 
who do not have a voice. These are the youngest of human lives; they 
should be protected, and they should not be researched on.
  We have at times in the past in the United States researched on other 
human beings. Whenever we have done so, at the moment in time when it 
was done, people did it on the basis that we need to know, or we need 
to be able to conduct this research, or this research will provide a 
cure for something. Yet in every instance--either in this country or 
others--when it has been done and the society at large has allowed it, 
we have always, always regretted it later. It has always been wrong for 
one group of humans who are in a more powerful position to research on 
somebody in a lesser position. That has always been true, and it 
remains true today. We should not use taxpayer dollars to fund research 
on the youngest of human lives. It is wrong, it is not necessary, and 
it should be stopped.
  I am pleased that the President has promised to veto this 
legislation. However, I also intend to not let this piece of 
legislation make it forward, to move to the President's desk. If others 
choose to bring this destruction of human life--taxpayer-funded 
destruction of human life--in front of this body, I intend that we are 
going to talk about it for a long time and address a whole series of 
issues, whether it be human cloning, which is associated with this 
human destructive legislation, or the creation of human-animal crosses 
for research purposes. We are going to spend a lot of time discussing 
this because young human lives are at stake. I will not sit idly by and 
acquiesce in their tragic destruction.
  If this human destructive legislation, or a Senate counterpart, comes 
before this body, I will use all means available to impede its 
progress. At the very least, we should have a lengthy debate on this 
issue before taking any action. The reason is that young human lives 
are at stake. I believe the very nature of our culture--whether we will 
have a culture of life or not is at stake. Will we honor human life 
because it is sacred per se, or are we going to use it for a research 
apparatus for the benefit of others? We have always regretted that when 
we have done it before. Today is a similar type of discussion.
  Some are saying this doesn't really look like a human life; it is so 
small, so microscopic in some cases, that some say it really cannot be 
human life. Yet, according to the biological and scientific definition, 
this is young human life. If allowed to be nurtured, it becomes you, 
me, or anybody watching. Life has to be nurtured at all stages. It is 
no different biologically at that stage versus at a later stage. It has 
the same biological components, or ``software,'' if you will, or DNA 
structure. It needs to be nurtured, and it matures into an adult human. 
If we are going to proceed on this, I think we are really hurting 
ourselves as a society.
  I also point out that some people are saying we need to do this to 
find cures. I want to find cures, also--cures for people with cancer, 
Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, or 
juvenile diabetes--and I have been working on that. The thing is, we 
have a route to find these cures that is ethical and moral.
  The House is also considering a cord blood bill from Congressman 
Smith today, and there are also adult stem cells. We have had this 
discussion before, but I think people hear ``stem cells,'' and they 
say: I am for it. We need to be clear that there are different types of 
stem cells: There are cord blood stem cells in the umbilical cord, 
there are embryonic stem cells, where you have to destroy the embryo 
itself to get the stem cells, and there are adult stem cells in my body 
and yours and anybody watching. These adult stem cells are a kind of 
repair cell that goes around the body fixing different parts of the 
body. We have been able to take adult stem cells out and grow them 
outside the body to the point that, today, over 58 different human 
diseases are being treated in human patients. There are published 
clinical studies using adult stem cells--the stem cells from one's own 
body.
  A Parkinson's disease patient, treated with his own adult stem cells, 
continues to exhibit relief of 80 percent of his symptoms more than 6 
years after the surgery. I had the man come in himself, who was treated 
with his own adult stem cells taken from the base of his nose, grown 
outside the body, put in the left-hand side of his brain, with a 
substantial improvement on the right-hand side of his body. That is 
purely ethical research. It is working and getting the job done.
  Spinal cord injuries. Dr. Carlos Limas treated 34 patients in 
Portugal with their own adult stem cells. I had two of them in to 
testify at a hearing last year--one is a paraplegic and one is a 
quadriplegic--and they are walking with the assistance of braces and 
their own adult stem cells.
  Also, umbilical cord blood cells were used to treat a South Korean 
woman who had been paralyzed for 19 years. She had not walked for 19 
years, and she can now walk with braces.
  What about juvenile diabetes? This disease affects a lot of people. 
This is one that has vexed a lot of people. We all want to find a cure 
for juvenile diabetes.
  Dr. Denise Faustman at Harvard is a leading diabetes researcher. She 
has completely reversed end-stage juvenile diabetes in mice and has FDA 
approval to begin human clinical trials using adult stem cell therapy.
  My point in mentioning these 3 of the 58 different areas is that we 
have an ethical answer. We have an answer that does not involve the 
destruction of human life, and it is right before us. We can do it. We 
can fund it, and we can move forward with it. We do not

[[Page 10933]]

have to destroy young human life to do this, and it is wrong if we do.
  There is going to be a big discussion. We are going to have a lot of 
debate about this issue on the floor or in committee or other places if 
people decide to move this legislation forward. This is not about 
banning human embryonic stem cell research. This is about taxpayer 
funding of human embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell 
research is legal. It is being conducted in this country. It is being 
funded by the Government of the United States on a limited set of 
lines. The President had the discussion and put forward the 
guidelines--a limited set of lines that were identified, on which a 
life-and-death decision had already been made prior to funding. That 
research continues and goes on today.
  The House bill would expand that and say we can kill young human life 
today for research on embryonic stem cells, and we want to do it with 
taxpayer funding. That is what I am saying I am opposed to is the 
taxpayer funding where a life-and-death decision has not been made, and 
we involve the destruction of young human lives. The House bill should 
not move forward.
  Mr. President, there are two statements that the President has put 
forward saying that he would veto such legislation if it comes forward. 
I ask unanimous consent to print these statements in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Statement of Administration Policy--May 24, 2005


       H.R. 2520--Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005

                 (Rep. Smith (R) NJ and 78 cosponsors)

       The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 
     2520, which would facilitate the use of umbilical-cord-blood 
     stem cells in biomedical research and in the treatment of 
     disease. Cord-blood stem cells, collected from the placenta 
     and umbilical cord after birth without doing harm to mother 
     or child, have been used in the treatment of thousands of 
     patients suffering from more than 60 different diseases, 
     including leukemia, Fanconi anemia, sickle cell disease, and 
     thalassemia. Researchers also believe cord-blood stem cells 
     may have the capacity to be differentiated into other cell 
     types, making them useful in the exploration of ethical stem 
     cell therapies for regenerative medicine.
       H.R. 2520 would increase the publicly available inventory 
     of cord-blood stem cells by enabling the Department of Health 
     and Human Services (HHS) to contract with cord-blood banks to 
     assist them in the collection and maintenance of 150,000 
     cord-blood stem cell units. This would make matched cells 
     available to treat more than 90 percent of patients in need. 
     The bill would also link all participating cord-blood banks 
     to a search network operated under contract with HHS, 
     allowing physicians to search for matches for their patients 
     quickly and effectively in one place. The bill also would 
     reauthorize a similar program already in place for aiding the 
     use of adult bone marrow in medical care. There is now $19 
     million available to implement the Cord Blood Cell Bank 
     program; the Administration will work with the Congress to 
     evaluate future spending requirements for these activities. 
     The bill is also consistent with the recommendation from the 
     National Academy of Science to create a National Cord Blood 
     Stem Cell Bank program.
       The Administration also applauds the bill's effort to 
     facilitate research into the potential of cord-blood stem 
     cells to advance regenerative medicine in an ethical way. 
     Some research indicates that cord blood cells may have the 
     ability to be differentiated into other cell types, in ways 
     similar to embryonic stem cells, and so present similar 
     potential uses but without raising the ethical problems 
     involved in the intentional destruction of human embryos. The 
     Administration encourages efforts to seek ethical ways to 
     pursue stem cell research, and believes that--with the 
     appropriate combination of responsible policies and 
     innovative scientific techniques--this field of research can 
     advance without violating important ethical boundaries. HR 
     2520 is an important step in that direction.
                                  ____


            Statement of Administration Policy--May 24, 2005


          H.R. 810--Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005

                (Rep. Castle (R) DE and 200 cosponsors)

       The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R 
     810, which would require Federal taxpayer dollars to be used 
     to encourage the ongoing destruction of nascent human life. 
     The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for 
     research that relies on the intentional destruction of human 
     embryos for the derivation of stem cells, overturning the 
     President's policy that supports research without promoting 
     such ongoing destruction. If H.R 810 were presented to the 
     President, he would veto the bill.
       The President strongly supports medical research, and 
     worked with Congress to dramatically increase resources for 
     the National Institutes of Health. However, this bill would 
     support and encourage a line of research that requires the 
     intentional destruction of living human embryos for the 
     derivation of their cells. Destroying nascent human life for 
     research raises serious ethical problems, and many millions 
     of Americans consider the practice immoral.
       The Administration believes that government has a duty to 
     use the people's money responsibly, both supporting important 
     public purposes and respecting moral boundaries. Every year 
     since 1995, Congress has on a bipartisan basis upheld this 
     balance by prohibiting Federal funds for research in which an 
     embryo is destroyed. Consistent with this provision, the 
     President's policy permits the funding of research using 
     embryonic cell lines created prior to August 9, 2001, along 
     with stem cell research using other kinds of cell lines. 
     Scientists can therefore explore the potential application of 
     such cells, but the Federal government does not offer 
     incentives or encouragement for the destruction of nascent 
     human life.
       H.R 810 seeks to replace that policy with one that offers 
     very little additional practical support to the research, 
     while using Federal dollars to offer a prospective incentive 
     for the destruction of human embryos. Moreover, H.R 810 
     relies on unsupported scientific assertions to promote 
     morally troubling and socially controversial research. 
     Embryonic stem cell research is at an early stage of basic 
     science, and has never yielded a therapeutic application in 
     humans. It is too early to say if a treatment or a cure will 
     develop from embryonic stem cell research.
       The Administration believes that the availability of 
     alternative sources of stem cells further counters the case 
     for compelling the American taxpayer to encourage the ongoing 
     destruction of human embryos for research. Researchers are 
     continually exploring alternative ways to derive pluripotent 
     stem cells. And alternative types of human stem cells--drawn 
     from adults, children, and umbilical-cord blood without doing 
     harm to the donors--have already achieved therapeutic results 
     in thousands of patients with dozens of different diseases. 
       Moreover, private sector support and public funding by 
     several States for this line of research, which will add up 
     to several billion dollars in the coming few years, argues 
     against any urgent need for an additional infusion of Federal 
     funds which, even if completely unrestricted, would not 
     approach such figures. Whatever one's view of the ethical 
     issues or the state of the research, the future of this field 
     does not require a policy of Federal subsidies offensive to 
     the moral principles of millions of Americans.
       H.R. 810 advances the proposition that the Nation must 
     choose between science and ethics. The Administration, 
     however, believes it is possible to advance scientific 
     research without violating ethical principles: both by 
     enacting the appropriate policy safeguards and by pursuing 
     the appropriate scientific techniques. HR 810 is seriously 
     flawed legislation that would undo those safeguards and 
     provide a disincentive to pursuing those techniques. 

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we will have much discussion of this 
issue if it comes before this body. I am going to be working 
aggressively with a number of individuals to see that we continue this 
stem cell work in an ethical manner, but not where it involves the 
destruction of human life.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted no on cloture, and I will vote 
no on the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be a judge on the U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court. I would like to 
take a few minutes today to explain my votes. I also would like to make 
a few comments on the events that led up to these votes.
  I strongly oppose the threat of the nuclear option. I believe this 
was an illegitimate tactic, a partisan abuse of power that was a threat 
to the Senate as an institution and to the country. Attempting to 
blackmail the minority into giving up their rights that have been part 
of the Senate's traditions and practices for centuries was a new low 
for a majority that has repeatedly been willing to put party over 
principle. Unfortunately, the blackmail

[[Page 10934]]

was partially successful. While I do applaud the efforts of the 
Senators who worked hard to broker an agreement, the end result is that 
three nominees who do not deserve lifetime appointments to the 
judiciary will now be confirmed.
  The agreement reached by our colleagues states that filibusters 
should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances. For me, that has 
always been the test. I think Democrats have stuck to that standard in 
blocking just 10--just 10--out of the 218 nominations of President Bush 
that have been brought to the floor. A number of very conservative and 
very controversial nominees have been confirmed by the Senate. Jeffrey 
Sutton, now a judge on the Sixth Circuit, was confirmed by a vote of 52 
to 41. No filibuster was used there. Jay Bybee, the author of the 
infamous torture memo, now sits on the Ninth Circuit. He was not 
filibustered. Michael McConnell, a very conservative and anti-choice 
law professor, often mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, was 
confirmed for the Tenth Circuit. He was not filibustered. Dennis Shedd 
was confirmed to the Fourth Circuit by a vote of 55 to 44. He could 
have been filibustered, but he was not filibustered.
  The idea that the filibuster has been used over the past several 
years as a tool to block all the nominees that the minority opposed is 
ludicrous. There were, and there continue to be, very good reasons to 
block a certain small number of nominees. Nothing that occurred last 
night changed that one iota. I will continue to vote against cloture 
only in extraordinary circumstances. I did that when we voted on 
cloture on the Owen nomination in 2003 and each subsequent time, and I 
have done that again today. For the majority to have created this 
constitutional crisis over what came down to five nominees was wrong, 
was an abuse of power. The American people did not support it, and I do 
not think they will support it in the future.
  With respect to the Owen nomination, there are a number of factors 
that I believe require us to give this nomination very careful 
consideration. First, we should consider that judges on our courts of 
appeal have an enormous influence on the law. Whereas, decisions of the 
district courts are always subject to appellate review, the decisions 
of the courts of appeals are only subject to discretionary review by 
the Supreme Court. The decisions of the courts of appeal are, in almost 
all cases, final, as the Supreme Court agrees to hear only a very small 
percentage of the cases on which its views are sought. That means that 
the scrutiny we give to circuit court nominees must be greater than 
that we give to district court nominees. And then, of course, the 
scrutiny we give to Supreme Court nominees will even be greater.
  Another important consideration is the ideological balance of the 
Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit is comprised of Texas, Louisiana, and 
Mississippi. The Fifth Circuit contains the highest percentage of 
minority residents, over 40 percent of any circuit other than the DC 
Circuit. It is a court that, during the civil rights era, issued some 
of the most significant decisions supporting the rights of African-
American citizens to participate as full members of our society.
  As someone who believes strongly in freedom, liberty, and equal 
justice under law and the important role of the Federal courts to 
defend these fundamental American principles, I am especially concerned 
about the makeup of our circuit courts and their approaches to civil 
rights issues.
  Even after 8 years of a Democratic President, the Fifth Circuit had 
twice as many Republican appointees as Democratic appointees. That is 
because during the last 6 years of the Clinton administration, the 
Judiciary Committee did not report out a single judge to the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals. As we all know, that was not for a lack of 
nominees to consider. President Clinton nominated three well-qualified 
lawyers to the Fifth Circuit--Jorge Rangel, Enrique Moreno, and Alston 
Johnson. None of these nominees even received a hearing before the 
committee.
  Then-Chairman Leahy held a hearing in July 2001 on the nomination of 
Judge Edith Brown Clement for a seat on the Fifth Circuit only a few 
months after she was nominated and less than 2 months after Democrats 
took control of the Senate. It was the first hearing in the Judiciary 
Committee for a Fifth Circuit nominee since September 1994. And Judge 
Clement, of course, was confirmed later in the year.
  The fact is, there is a history here and a special burden on 
President Bush to consult with our side on nominees for this circuit; 
otherwise, we will be simply rewarding the obstructionism that the 
President's party engaged in over the last 6 years of the Clinton 
administration by allowing him to fill, with his choices, seats that 
his party held open for years, even when qualified nominees were 
advanced by President Clinton.
  I say, once again, my colleagues on the Republican side bear some 
responsibility for this situation. There was a time when I thought they 
might help resolve it by urging the administration to address the 
Senate's failure to take up Clinton nominees. This entire controversy 
over judges that has come to a head over the last several weeks could 
have been avoided if our Republican colleagues had convinced the 
President to renominate even a few of those Clinton nominees who never 
received a hearing or vote in the committee, including nominees to the 
Fifth Circuit. But, of course, that did not happen. There was no effort 
to reach a real compromise to take into account the concerns of all 
parties.
  A compromise at the point of a gun is not a compromise. That, I'm 
afraid, is what we had last night.
  With that background, let me outline the concerns that have caused me 
to reach the conclusion that Justice Owen should not be confirmed.
  Justice Owen has had a successful legal career. She graduated at the 
top of her class from Baylor University Law School, worked as an 
associate and partner at the law firm of Andrews and Kurth in Houston, 
and has served on the Texas Supreme Court since January 1995. These are 
great accomplishments.
  But Justice Owen's record as a member of the Texas Supreme Court 
leads me to conclude that she is not the right person for a position on 
the Fifth Circuit. I am not convinced that Justice Owen will put aside 
her personal views and ensure that all litigants before her on the 
Fifth Circuit received a fair hearing. Her decisions in cases involving 
consumers' rights, worker's rights, and reproductive rights suggest 
that she would be unable to maintain an open mind and provide all 
litigants a fair and impartial hearing.
  Justice Owen has a disturbing record of consistently siding against 
consumers or victims of personal injury and in favor of business and 
insurance companies. When the Texas Supreme Court, which is a very 
conservative and pro- business court, rules in favor of consumers or 
victims of personal injury, Justice Owen frequently dissents. According 
to Texas Watch, during the period 1999 to 2002, Justice Owen dissented 
almost 40 percent of the time in cases in which a consumer prevailed. 
But in cases where the consumer position did not succeed, Justice Owen 
never dissented.
  At her first hearing, Senator Kennedy and then-Senator Edwards asked 
Justice Owen to cite cases in which she dissented from the majority and 
sided in favor of consumers. Justice Owen could cite only one case, 
Saenz v. Fidelity Guaranty Insurance Underwriters. But Justice Owen's 
opinion in this case hardly took a pro-consumer position since it still 
would have deprived the plaintiff of the entire jury verdict. She did 
not join Justice Spector's dissent, which would have upheld the jury 
verdict in favor of Ms. Saenz.
  Also during that first hearing, Senators Feinstein and Durbin 
questioned Justice Owen about Provident American Ins. Co. v. Castaneda. 
In that case, the plaintiff sought damages against a health insurer for 
denying health care benefits, after the insurer had already provided 
pre-operative approval for the surgery. Justice Owen, writing for the 
majority, reversed the jury's verdict in

[[Page 10935]]

favor of the plaintiff and rejected the plaintiff's claim that the 
health insurer violated the Texas Insurance Code and the Deceptive 
Trade Practices Act. At the hearing, Justice Owen defended her opinion 
by saying that she believed that the plaintiff was seeking extra-
contractual damages and that the plaintiff had already received full 
coverage under the policy and statutory penalties. But, in the words of 
her colleague, Justice Raul Gonzalez, who wrote a dissent, Justice 
Owen's opinion ``may very well eviscerate the bad-faith tort as a 
viable case of action in Texas.'' The cause of action for bad faith is 
designed to deter insurers from engaging in bad faith practices like 
denying coverage in the first place.
  In addition, with respect to several decisions involving 
interpretation and application of the Texas parental notification law, 
I am deeply troubled by Justice Owen's apparently ignoring the plain 
meaning of the statute and injecting her personal beliefs concerning 
abortion that have no basis in Texas or U.S. Supreme Court law. In 
2000, the Texas legislature enacted a parental notification law that 
allows a minor to obtain an abortion without notification of her 
parents if she demonstrates to a court that she has complied with one 
of three ``judicial bypass'' provisions: (1) that she is ``mature and 
sufficiently well informed'' to make the decision without notification 
to either of her parents; (2) that notification would not be in her 
best interest; or (3) that notification may lead to her physical, 
sexual, or emotional abuse.
  During Justice Owen's first confirmation hearing, Senator Cantwell 
questioned Justice Owen about her positions in cases interpreting this 
law, focusing on Justice Owen's insistence in In re Jane Doe. In that 
case, a teenager is required to consider ``philosophic, social, moral, 
and religious'' arguments before seeking an abortion. In her opinion, 
Justice Owen cited the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood 
of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey to support her contention that 
States can require minors to consider religious views in their decision 
to have an abortion. But, as Senator Cantwell noted, Casey in no way 
authorizes States to require minors to consider religious arguments in 
their decision on whether to have an abortion. Upon this further 
questioning, Justice Owen then said that she was referring to another 
Supreme Court case, H.L. v. Matheson, even though her opinion only 
cited Casey for this proposition. And even Matheson does not say that 
minors can be required by State law to consider religious arguments. It 
is my view that Justice Owen was going beyond not only a plain reading 
of the Texas statute, but Supreme Court case law, and inappropriately 
injecting her own personal views to make it more difficult for a minor 
to comply with the statute and obtain an abortion.
  I was also not satisfied with Justice Owen's responses to my 
questions about bonuses to Texas Supreme Court law clerks. I asked her 
at the hearing whether she saw any ethical concerns with allowing law 
clerks to receive bonuses from their prospective employers during their 
clerkships. I also explored the topic further with her in followup 
written questions. Justice Owen stated repeatedly in her written 
responses to my questions that she is not aware of law clerks actually 
receiving bonuses while they were employed by the court. She reaffirmed 
that testimony in her second hearing. This seems implausble given the 
great amount of publicity given to Ian investigation pursued by the 
Travis County attorney of exactly that practice and the well publicized 
modifications to the Texas Supreme Court's rules that resulted from 
that investigation and the accompanying controversy.
  Even more disturbing, Justice Owen took the position, both at the 
first hearing and in her responses to written questions, that because 
the Texas Supreme Court Code of Conduct requires law clerks to recuse 
themselves from matters involving their prospective employers, there 
really is no ethical concern raised by law clerks accepting bonuses 
while employed with the court. I disagree. It is not sufficient for law 
clerks to recuse themselves from matters involving their prospective 
employers if they have received thousands of dollars in bonuses while 
they are working for the court. The appearance of impropriety and 
unfairness that such a situation creates is untenable. As I understand 
it, the Federal courts have long prohibited Federal law clerks both 
from receiving bonuses during their clerkships and from working on 
cases involving their prospective employers. I am pleased that the 
Texas Supreme Court finally recognized this ethical problem and changed 
its code of conduct for clerks. Justice Owen, in contrast, seems intent 
on defending the prior, indefensible, practice.
  Finally, I want to note the unusual nature of this particular 
nomination. Unlike so many nominees during the Clinton years, Justice 
Owen was considered in the Judiciary Committee under Senator Leahy's 
leadership in 2002. She had a hearing, and she had a vote. Her 
nomination was rejected. This has been the first time in history that a 
circuit nominee who was formally rejected by the committee, or the full 
Senate for that matter, has been renominated by the same President to 
the same position. I do not believe that defeated judicial nominations 
should be reconsidered like legislation that is not enacted. After all, 
legislation can be revisited after it is enacted. If Congress makes a 
mistake when it passes a law, it can fix that mistake in subsequent 
legislation. Let us all remember that judicial appointments are for 
life. Confirmations cannot be taken back or fixed. A vote to confirm a 
nominee is final. A vote to reject that nominee should be final as 
well. For the President to renominate a defeated nominee and the Senate 
to reconsider her simply because of the change of a few seats in an 
election cheapens the nomination process and the Senate's 
constitutional role in that process.
  I believe Justice Owen is bright and accomplished, but I sincerely 
believe that based on her judicial record, Justice Owen is not the 
right choice for this position.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I discuss the nomination of Priscilla 
Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and to briefly discuss the 
compromise before us on the so-called nuclear option.
  I continue to oppose all three of the nominees that will proceed to 
up-or-down votes as the result of this compromise, and I will be voting 
against cloture on Priscilla Owen as a result. But I do acknowledge the 
importance of preserving the process of debating judicial nominees. I 
do not feel that the filibuster has been misused with regard to 
President Bush's nominees, as I'll explain shortly, but I am impressed 
at the efforts of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to avoid the 
all-or-nothing nuclear option vote that threatened to cause us to break 
down as an institution.
  I also express my hope that the term ``extraordinary circumstances'' 
that is in this compromise is interpreted sensibly. When extreme 
nominees threaten the balance of our federal courts, I view those as 
extraordinary circumstances. I will continue to vote to block any 
nominee who is not suitable for the bench, and it will continue to be 
an unusual exception for me not to support a nominee. My standard has 
been extraordinary circumstances all along.
  As a former member of the Judiciary Committee, I attended a hearing 
on Priscilla Owen that lasted a full day. During that hearing, Owen's 
record showed a particular disregard for precedent and the plain rule 
of law.
  Anyone who walks into a courtroom as a plaintiff or a defendant in 
this country should do so having the full confidence that there is 
impartiality on the part of the judge on the bench. They should have 
total confidence that the rule of law will be followed, and believe the 
issues will be judged on their merits rather than viewed through the 
prism of an individual judge's personal values or beliefs.
  There is reason to be concerned about the record of Priscilla Owen. 
Time after time, even her own Republican colleagues, on a predominantly 
Republican Texas Supreme Court

[[Page 10936]]

bench, criticized her for failing to follow precedent or interpreting 
statutes in ways that ignore the clear intent of the law.
  What some of Owen's colleagues on the bench have said about her 
opinions I think is important. In a case dealing with a developer 
seeking to evade Austin's clean water laws, her dissent was called 
``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric.''
  In another case, her statutory interpretation was called 
``unworkable.'' In yet another case, the dissent she joined was called 
``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.''
  There is another reason this nomination is so important. This is 
critical to all the nominees we are considering for appointment to the 
Federal bench, and especially important for you here this morning. That 
is, what is the judicial philosophy and commitment to upholding current 
law as it relates to a citizen's right to privacy. I asked Justice Owen 
at her hearing about her beliefs on the right to privacy. I asked her 
if she believed there was constitutional right to privacy and where she 
found that right in the Constitution.
  She declined at the time to answer that question without the relevant 
case information and precedents before her. When Senator Feinstein 
followed up with a similar question, Owen against would not answer 
whether she believes a right to privacy does exist within the 
Constitution.
  The question of whether a nominee believes that the right to privacy 
exists with regard to the ability to make decisions about one's own 
body is only the tip of the privacy iceberg. I believe that we are in 
an information age that poses new challenges in protecting the right to 
privacy. We are facing difficult issues including whether U.S. citizens 
have been treated as enemy combatants in a prison without access to 
counselor trial by jury, whether businesses have access to some of your 
most personal information, whether the Government has established a 
process for eavesdropping or tracking U.S. citizens without probable 
cause, and whether the Government has the ability to develop new 
software that might track the use of your own computer and places where 
you might go on the Internet without your consent or knowledge. There 
are a variety of issues that are before us on an individual's right to 
privacy and how that right to privacy is going to be interpreted. A 
clear understanding of a nominee's willingness to follow precedent on 
protecting privacy is a very important criterion for me, and it should 
be a concern for all Members.
  Of course, some of my concern and skepticism about Justice Owen's 
views on privacy results from the opinions she wrote in a series of 
cases interpreting the Texas law on parental notification. In 2000 the 
State of Texas passed a law requiring parental notification. But they 
also included a bypass system for extreme cases.
  Eleven out of 12 times Owen analyzed whether a minor should be 
entitled to bypass the notice requirement, she voted either to deny the 
bypass or to create greater obstacles to the bypass.
  Owen wrote in dissent that she would require a minor to demonstrate 
that she had considered religious issues surrounding the decision and 
that she had received specific counseling from someone other than a 
physician, her friend, or her family. Requirements, I believe, that go 
far beyond what the statute requires.
  In interpreting the ``best interest'' arm of the statute, Owen held 
that a minor should be required to demonstrate that the abortion 
itself--not avoiding notification--was in the individual's best 
interests. In this particular case, I think she went far beyond what 
the statue required.
  Where does that put us? Women in this country rely on the right to 
choose. It is an issue on which we have had 30 years of settled law and 
case precedent. In the Fifth Circuit, there are three States that 
continue to have unconstitutional laws on the books, and legislatures 
that are hostile to that right to choose. The Federal courts are the 
sole protector of women's right to privacy in these states. I do not 
believe that the rights of the women of the Fifth Circuit can be 
trusted to Justice Priscilla Owen.
  The Senate provides each of us with the procedural privilege to 
thoroughly discuss my concerns about this nominee--the filibuster. The 
filibuster has been used against me on issues I care deeply about, just 
as I have used this procedure when it was necessary to protect the 
people of my state. This body, in which I am so privileged to serve, is 
more important than any one of us, precisely because even one Senator 
can stand up for her state in the face of a powerful majority.
  This agreement, whatever else I might think of it, preserves the 
rights in this body that make it unique and that give it the most 
credibility. Each of us has to respect the views of the rest. When 40 
of us stand together, the other 60 must negotiate. That is healthy and 
that is what happened here. The rules of the Senate, and the existence 
of the Federal judiciary itself, pose proper checks on majority and 
Presidential power. That is the way it should stay.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to respond to a statement that the 
Senior Senator from West Virginia made yesterday. In his remarks, the 
Senator conceded the legitimacy of the constitutional option, what he 
called the ``nuclear option,'' as a way for the Senate to determine its 
practices and procedures. The option is, of course, the leader's right 
to obtain a ruling from the presiding officer that certain actions of 
Senators are dilatory and cannot preclude the Senate from voting on a 
judicial nomination.
  Here is what he said: ``The so-called nuclear option has been around 
for a long time. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.'' He went 
on to explain that this constitutional option had been available since 
at least 1917, and he repeatedly emphasized that this tool has been 
around ``for a long time.''
  I appreciate this acknowledgment from the Senator from West Virginia, 
because I know he has studied the history of the Senate, and I know he 
has intimate familiarity with the workings of the Constitutional 
Option. There is nothing new about the constitutional option, as I 
discussed in my May 19 floor speech outlining the legal and 
constitutional rationale for its exercise. The constitutional option is 
simply the Senate's exercise of its power to define its own 
procedures--a power that comes directly from the Constitution and has 
been affirmed by the Supreme Court. (U.S. v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892)) 
I appreciate that the Senator has acknowledged its legitimacy.
  The Senator from West Virginia also argued, however, that past 
majority leaders have never used the constitutional option to 
``tamper'' with extended debate. As my May 19 statement established, as 
did yesterday's statements by Senators McConnell, Hatch, and Bennett, 
that is not actually the case.
  The fact is that the Senator himself used the constitutional option 
four times when serving as majority leader--in one case to outright 
eliminate the filibuster for motions to proceed to Executive Calendar 
nominations. Moreover, in February 1979, he forced the minority to 
agree to a formal rules change after credibly threatening that he would 
exercise the constitutional option. At that time, the Senator said on 
this floor, ``if I have to be forced into a corner to try for a 
majority vote, I will do it because I am going to do my duty as I see 
my duty, whether I win or lose.''
  The Senate was nearly forced into a similar ``corner'' this week. Had 
Democrats not supported cloture on Priscilla Owen today, then all 
Senators would have had to make a conclusive decision as to whether it 
should take 60 or 51 votes to confirm a judge. Instead, we are putting 
off that decision until another day.
  That may still come. And if it does come, I hope that we hear no more 
talk of the ``illegitimacy'' of the constitutional option. There is 
plenty to discuss as to whether exercising the option is prudential in 
a particular case. Some of the debate these past few days has addressed 
that prudential question, including some of the discussion from the 
Senator from West Virginia. But

[[Page 10937]]

there has also been talk about the constitutional option being a case 
of ``lawlessness'' or ``breaking the rules to change the rules.'' The 
constitutional option is a part of Senate history. In Senator Byrd's 
words, it ``has been around for a long time.''
  And it will always be with us. The constitutional option is not, as 
the minority leader has repeatedly insisted, ``off the table.'' It is 
simply unnecessary at present. If it becomes necessary again, we may be 
called on to live up to our responsibilities to the Constitution and to 
the Senate to ensure that we restore our traditions and guarantee up-
or-down votes to all judicial nominees who reach the Senate floor.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, at various times during the course of 
debate in recent days over the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen, a 
number of her previous rulings have been badly mischaracterized. Last 
Thursday, May 19, I rose to speak about a number of those cases and to 
correct the record. And just this morning, I published an op-ed in 
National Review Online to further rebut these baseless criticisms. I 
ask unanimous consent that an excerpt of that op-ed be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       It is now conceded that Justice Owen, Justice Brown, and 
     Judge Pryor all deserve up-or-down votes. I happen to know 
     personally that the case against Justice Owen was especially 
     weak, because I know Priscilla personally from our service 
     together on the Texas supreme court. Just consider the 
     following litany of supposedly ``out of the mainstream'' 
     rulings for which she was criticized:
       A number of senators criticized Justice Owen's opinion in 
     Montgomery Independent School District v. Davis. One senator 
     specifically attacked her for failing to protect a teacher 
     who was ``wrongly dismissed.'' The case involved the 
     authority of a local school board to dismiss a poorly 
     performing and abusive teacher. The teacher had admitted that 
     she had referred to her students as ``little s***s.'' When 
     confronted, the teacher justified the use of the expletive on 
     the bizarre ground that she used exactly the same language 
     when talking to her own children. The teacher regularly 
     insulted parents as well. The opinion joined by Justice Owen 
     concluded that the school board was authorized to dismiss 
     this teacher. It noted that the majority's ruling ``allows a 
     state hearing examiner to make policy decisions that the 
     Legislature intended local school boards to make,'' and that 
     the majority had ``misinterpreted the Education Code.''
       One senator attacked Justice Owen for her opinion in Texas 
     Farmers Insurance Co. v. Murphy. In this case, Justice Owen 
     simply joined an opinion holding that neither an arsonist nor 
     his spouse should benefit from his crime by recovering 
     insurance proceeds. The opinion followed two unanimous 
     decisions of the Fifth Circuit, the very court to which 
     Justice Owen has been nominated.
       Justice Owen was also criticized for a ruling she and I 
     both joined in Peeler v. Hughes & Luce and Darrell C. 
     Jordan--in which we simply held that an admitted criminal 
     could not benefit from criminal activity by suing the 
     criminal-defense attorney for malpractice.
       A number of senators focused on Justice Owen's opinion in 
     FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin. One senator 
     specifically criticized her for refusing to rule that a Texas 
     water law ``was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative 
     authority.'' Yet liberal attorneys regularly criticize the 
     nondelegation doctrine and claim that conservatives wrongly 
     use it to invalidate laws duly enacted by the legislature. In 
     fact, just last month one senator criticized another nominee, 
     Bill Pryor, for championing the nondelegation doctrine. So 
     Justice Owen's critics seem to argue that if you support the 
     nondelegation doctrine, you are out of the mainstream, and 
     that if you oppose the nondelegation doctrine, you are out of 
     the mainstream. It reminds me of a country-western song: 
     ``Darned If I Don't, Danged If I Do.''
       One senator claimed that, in Read v. Scott Fetzer Co., 
     Justice Owen ruled that a woman raped by a vacuum-cleaner 
     salesman could not sue the company that had employed him 
     after failing to undertake a standard background check--an 
     allegation recently articulated in an op-ed in Roll Call. Yet 
     as my letter to the editor noted, that allegation is plainly 
     false. As the opinion joined by Justice Owen noted, ``[n]o 
     one questions that [the company that had hired the rapist] is 
     liable.'' The justices simply disagreed on whether another 
     company--one that had not hired the rapist and had no 
     relationship with the rapist--should also have been held 
     liable.
       Justice Owen was also criticized for her ruling in Hyundai 
     Motor Co. v. Alvarado. In that case, an automobile alleged to 
     be defective had in fact fully satisfied the federal standard 
     then in effect. The plaintiff chose to sue anyway, despite 
     federal law. Justice Owen simply held that Congress had 
     forbidden such lawsuits once the federal standard had been 
     met--a technical legal doctrine known as federal preemption. 
     For this, she was sharply criticized. Yet her opinion simply 
     followed the ``solid majority of the courts to consider this 
     issue''--including precedents authored by judges appointed by 
     President Jimmy Carter. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court 
     later adopted Justice Owen's approach (Geier v. American 
     Honda Motor Co., Inc.), in an opinion authored by Clinton 
     appointee, and former Democrat chief counsel of the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee, Justice Stephen Breyer.
       Justice Owen was likewise criticized for her rulings in 
     Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies, a case involving a Texas 
     civil-rights law expressly modeled after Title VII of the 
     federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and City of Garland v. 
     Dallas Morning News, a Texas open-government law modeled 
     after the federal Freedom of Information Act. Once again, all 
     she did was follow precedents adopted by appointees of 
     Presidents Carter and Clinton.
       Justice Owen and I happened to disagree in Weiner v. 
     Wasson, a case involving a technical matter of applying a 
     statute of limitations to a medical malpractice suit. One 
     senator argued that my opinion was ``a lecture to the 
     dissent'' about the importance of stare decisis and following 
     precedent. The argument is baseless. In fact, Justice Owen 
     didn't try to overturn precedent in that case; only the 
     defendant did. Moreover, Justice Owen's ruling contained an 
     equally emphatic ``lecture'' to the defendant about the 
     importance of following precedent.
       And of course, there were the now-famous cases involving 
     the popular Texas parental-notification law--a parental-
     rights law that generally requires minors to notify one 
     parent before obtaining an abortion. Readers should ask 
     themselves one simple question: Who would you trust to 
     analyze and determine the quality of Justice Owen's legal 
     analysis in those cases? The author of the Texas law--who 
     supports Owen? Her former colleagues on the court, including 
     former Justices Alberto Gonzales and Greg Abbott, who support 
     her? Now-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has 
     testified--under oath--that he supports Justice Owen and 
     that, contrary to false reports, he never accused her of 
     ``judicial activism''? The pro-choice Democrat law professor 
     appointed by the Texas supreme court to set up procedures 
     under the statute--who supports Owen, and who has written: 
     ``If this is activism, then any judicial interpretation of a 
     statute's terms is judicial activism''? Or do you trust the 
     liberal special-interest groups who sharply opposed the Texas 
     law, and never wanted that law to be enacted in the first 
     place? Or the groups who literally make a living destroying 
     the reputation of this president's nominees?
       The attacks on these rulings by Justice Owen reminded me of 
     what Mark Twain once said: ``A lie can travel halfway around 
     the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.'' 
     But let's keep our eye on the ball. The American people know 
     a controversial ruling when they see one--whether it's the 
     redefinition of marriage, or the expulsion of the Pledge of 
     Allegiance and other expressions of faith from the public 
     square--whether it's the elimination of the three-strikes-
     and-you're out law and other penalties against convicted 
     criminals, or the forced removal of military recruiters from 
     college campuses. Justice Owen's rulings fall nowhere near 
     this category of cases. There is a world of difference 
     between struggling to interpret the ambiguous expressions of 
     a legislature, and refusing to obey a legislature's 
     directives altogether.
       Thankfully, the Senate has now effectively acknowledged 
     this important distinction, by guaranteeing Justice Owen an 
     up-or-down vote after four long years.

  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. What is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate business is the nomination of 
Priscilla Owen to be United States Circuit Court Judge.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak as in 
morning business for such time as I consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             GLOBAL WARMING

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, over the past few weeks, I have debunked 
the notion of scientific consensus about global warming. The claim 
there is consensus rests on four fundamental pillars. My previous talks 
made clear that the first three pillars are made of sand.

[[Page 10938]]

  It is not true, for example, that the National Academy of Sciences 
believes the science of climate change is settled. In fact, the report 
is replete with caveats, warning the reader of the many uncertainties 
associated with claims of global warming. Yet advocates continue to 
recite small excerpts while ignoring the caution about uncertainties 
contained within the same paragraph or even the same science.
  It is also not true that the second pillar, the U.N. science report 
known as the IPCC, proves a consensus. The flagship study on which the 
IPCC report relies, known as the hockey stick, which shows an 
unprecedented rise in 20th century temperatures, has been thoroughly 
discredited by scientists on both sides of the debate. In fact, 
recently, and since 1999, there hasn't been anyone who has agreed there 
is authenticity to the issue. In addition, the U.N. report relies on an 
explosive increase in emissions from poor countries over the next 
century based on the political decision by the report's author that 
countries such as Algeria will be as wealthy or wealthier than the 
United States.
  The third pillar, supposedly proving that the science is settled that 
the Arctic is melting, is based on political science. Arctic 
temperatures are no warmer than they were in the 1930s. Similarly, the 
thickness of the Arctic glaciers and the sea ice appears to vary 
naturally by as much as 16 percent annually.
  These and other factors which the alarmists find inconvenient would 
seem to indicate that projections of an Arctic climate catastrophe are 
speculative, at best.
  Today I conclude the series on the four pillars of climate alarmists 
by discussing the problems associated with global climate models.
  Let me begin by briefly explaining the climate models and how they 
function. Climate models help scientists describe changes in the 
climate system. They are not models in the conventional sense; that is, 
they are not physical replicas. Rather, they are mathematical 
representations of the physical laws and processes that govern the 
Earth's climate. According to Dr. David Legates of the University of 
Delaware, climate models ``are designed to be descriptions of the full 
three-dimensional destruction of the earth's climate.'' Dr. Legates 
claims models are used ``in a variety of applications, including the 
investigation of the possible role of various climate forcing 
mechanisms and the simulation of past and future climates.''
  Thousands of climate changes studied rely on computer models. The 
Arctic Council, whose work I addressed last week, stated that arctic 
warming and the impact stemming from that warming are firmly 
established by computer models.
  Quoting from him:

       While the models differ in their projections of some of the 
     features of climate change, they are all in agreement that 
     the world will warm significantly as a result of human 
     activities, and that the Arctic is likely to experience 
     noticeable warming, particularly early and intensely.

  Similarly, the IPCC, which I also discussed in the earlier talks, 
relied on such earlier models to project a long-term temperature 
increase ranging from 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Celsius and assorted and 
potentially dangerous climate changes over the next century.
  According to Dr. Kenneth Green, Dr. Tim Ball, and Dr. Steven 
Schroeder, the politicians clearly do not realize that the major 
conclusions of the IPCC's reports are not based on hard evidence and 
observation but, rather, largely upon the output of assumption-driven 
climate models.
  The alarmists cite the results of climate models as proof of the 
catastrophic warming hypotheses. Consider one alarmist's description, 
who wrote recently:

       Drawing on highly sophisticated computer models, climate 
     scientists can project, not predict, how much temperatures 
     may rise by say 2100 if we carry on with business as usual.

  He continues:

       Although scenarios vary, some get pretty severe, and so do 
     the projected impacts of climate change, rising sea levels, 
     species extensions, glacier melting and so forth.

  It sounds pretty scary, but the statement is completely false. It 
sheds no light on the likelihood or reliability of such projections. 
If, for example, a model shows a significant temperature increase over 
the next 50 years, how much confidence do we have in that projection? 
Attaching probabilities to model results is extremely difficult and 
rife with uncertainties.
  In the 2000 edition of ``Nature,'' four climate modelers noted that:

       A basic problem with all such predictions to date has been 
     the difficulty of providing any systematic estimate of 
     uncertainty.

  This problem stems from the fact that:

       These [climate] models do not necessarily span the full 
     range of known climate system behavior.

  According to the National Academy of Sciences:

     . . . without an understanding of the sources and degree of 
     uncertainty, decision-makers could fail to define the best 
     ways to deal with the serious issue of global warming.

  This fact should temper the enthusiasm of those who support Kyoto-
style regulations that will harm the American economy.
  Previously, we have talked about the harm to the economy and have 
referred to the Wharton Econometric Survey which was conducted by the 
Wharton School of Economics. It gets into a lot of detail as to what is 
going to happen. For example, to comply with Kyoto, it would cost the 
average family of four some $2,700 a year. So it is a very significant 
thing.
  Now note, too, the distinction between ``project'' and ``predict.'' 
The alarmist writer noted earlier creates the misimpression that a 
projection is more solid than a prediction. But a projection is the 
output of a model calculation. Put another way, it is only as good as 
the model's equations and inputs. As we will see later in this 
presentation, such inputs or assumptions about the future can be 
extremely flawed, if not totally divorced from reality. And this, to be 
sure, is only one of the many technical shortcomings that limit the 
scientific validity of climate modeling.
  Unfortunately, rarely does any scrutiny accompany model simulations. 
But based on what we know about the physics of climate models, as well 
as the questionable assumptions built into the models themselves, we 
should be very skeptical of their results. This is exactly the view of 
the National Academy of Sciences. According to the NAS:

       Climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is 
     limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited 
     size of their calculations, and the difficulty of 
     interpreting their answers that exhibit as much complexity as 
     in nature.

  At this point, climate modeling is still a very rudimentary science. 
As Richard Kerr wrote in Science magazine:

       Climate forecasting, after all, is still in its infancy.

  Models, while helpful for scientists in understanding the climate 
system, are far from perfect. According to climatologist Gerald North 
of Texas A&M University:

       It's extremely hard to tell whether the models have 
     improved; the uncertainties are large.

  Or as climate modeler Peter Stone of the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology put it:

       The major [climate prediction] uncertainties have not been 
     reduced at all.

  Based on these uncertainties, cloud physicist Robert Charlson, 
professor emeritus at the University of Washington-Seattle, has 
concluded:

       To make it sound like we understand climate is not right.

  This is not to deny that climate modeling has improved over the last 
three decades. Indeed, scientists have constructed models that more 
accurately reflect the real world. In the 1970s, models were capable 
only of describing the atmosphere, while over the last few years models 
can describe, albeit inadequately, the atmosphere, land surface, 
oceans, sea ice, and other variables.
  But greater complexity does not mean more accurate results. In fact, 
the more variables scientists incorporate, the more uncertainties 
arise.

[[Page 10939]]

Dr. Syukuro Manabe, who helped create the first climate model that 
coupled the atmosphere and oceans, has observed:

       Models that incorporate everything from dust to vegetation 
     may look like the real world, but the error range associated 
     with the addition of each new variable could result in near 
     total uncertainty. This would represent a paradox: The more 
     complex the models, the less we know.

  We are often reminded that the IPCC used sophisticated modeling 
techniques in projecting temperature increases for the coming century. 
But as William O'Keefe and Jeff Kueter of the George C. Marshall 
Institute pointed out in a recent paper:

       The complex models envisioned by the IPCC have many more 
     than twenty inputs, and many of those inputs will be known 
     with much less than 90 percent confidence.

  Also, tinkering with climate variables is a delicate business--
getting one variable wrong can greatly skew model results. Dr. David 
Legates has noted that:

       Anything you do wrong in a climate model will adversely 
     affect the simulation of every other variable.

  Take precipitation, for example. As Dr. Legates noted:

       Precipitation requires moisture in the atmosphere and a 
     mechanism to cause it to condense (causing the air to rise 
     over mountains, by surface heating, as a result of weather 
     fronts, or by cyclonic rotation). Any errors in representing 
     the atmospheric moisture content or precipitation-causing 
     mechanisms will result in errors in the simulation of 
     precipitation.

  Dr. Legates concluded:

       Clearly, the interrelationships among the various 
     components that comprise the climate system make climate 
     modeling difficult.

  The IPCC, in its Third Assessment Report, noted this problem, and 
many others, with climate modeling, including--this is a quote from 
their report; the very basis that many of the alarmists are basing 
their decisions on:

       Discrepancies between the vertical profile of temperature 
     change in the troposphere seen in observations and models.
       Large uncertainties in estimates of internal climate 
     variability (also referred to as natural climate variability) 
     from models and observations.
       Considerable uncertainty in the reconstructions of solar 
     and volcanic forcing which are based on limited observational 
     data for all but the last two decades.
       Large uncertainties in anthropogenic forcings associated 
     with the effects of aerosols.
       Large differences in the response of different models to 
     the same forcing.

  I want to delve a little deeper into the first point concerning the 
discrepancies between temperature observations in the troposphere and 
the surface. This discrepancy is very important because it tends to 
undermine a key assumption supporting the warming hypothesis--that more 
rapid warming should occur in the troposphere than at the surface, 
creating the so-called greenhouse ``fingerprint.'' But the National 
Research Council believes real-world temperature observations tell a 
different story.
  In January of 2000, the NRC panel examined the output from several 
climate models to assess how well they mimicked the observed surface 
and lower atmospheric temperature trends. They found that:

       Although climate models indicate that changes in greenhouse 
     gases and aerosols play a significant role in defining the 
     vertical structure of the observed atmosphere, model-
     observation discrepancies indicate that the definitive model 
     experiments have not been done.

  John Wallace, the panel chairman and professor of atmospheric 
sciences at the University of Washington, put it more bluntly. He said:

       There really is a difference between temperatures at the 
     two levels that we don't fully understand.

  More recently, researchers at the University of Colorado, Colorado 
State University, and the University of Arizona, examined the 
differences between real-world temperature observations with the 
results of four widely used climate models. They probed the following 
question: Do the differences stem from uncertainties in how greenhouse 
gases and other variables affect the climate system or by chance model 
fluctuations; that is, the variability caused by the model's flawed 
representation of the climate system?
  As it turned out, neither of these factors was to blame. According to 
the researchers:

       Significant errors in the simulation of globally averaged 
     tropospheric temperature structure indicate likely errors in 
     tropospheric water-vapor content and therefore total 
     greenhouse-gas forcing, precipitable water, and convectively 
     forced large-scale circulation.

  Moreover, based on the ``significant errors of simulation,'' the 
researchers called for ``extreme caution in applying simulation results 
to future climate-change assessment activities and to attributions 
studies.
  They also questioned ``the predictive ability of recent generation 
model simulations, the most rigorous test of any hypothesis.''
  There does not seem to be much wiggle room here: Climate models are 
useful tools, but unable, in important respects, to simulate the 
climate system, undermining their ``predictive ability.''
  Based on this hard fact, let me bring you back to the alarmist writer 
I referenced earlier. As he wrote recently:

       Drawing on highly sophisticated computer models, climate 
     scientists can project--not predict--how much temperature may 
     rise by, say, 2100, if we carry on with business as usual.

  Again, based on what I have just recounted, this is disingenuous at 
best. I think a fairminded person would find it horribly misleading and 
inaccurate.
  Another serious model limitation concerns the interaction of clouds 
and water vapor with the climate system.
  Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, reports of 
``terrible errors about clouds in all the models.'' He noted that these 
errors ``make it impossible to predict the climate sensitivity because 
the sensitivity of the models depends primarily on water vapor and 
clouds. Moreover, if clouds are wrong,'' Dr. Lindzen said, ``there's no 
way you can get water vapor right. They're both intimately tied to each 
other.''
  In fact, water vapor and clouds are the main absorbers of infrared 
radiation in the atmosphere. Even if all other greenhouse gases, 
including carbon dioxide, were to disappear, we would still be left 
with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect. But according to 
Dr. Lindzen, ``the way current models handle factors such as clouds and 
water vapor is disturbingly arbitrary. In many instances the underlying 
physics is simply not known.''
  Dr. Lindzen notes that this is a significant flaw, because ``a small 
change in cloud cover can strongly affect the response to carbon 
dioxide.'' He further notes, ``Current models all predict that warmer 
climates will be accompanied by increasing humidity at all levels.'' 
Such behavior ``is an artifact of the models since they have neither 
the physics nor the numerical accuracy to deal with water vapor.''
  I think sometimes you have to look at the science and the 
contradictions, and even if we don't thoroughly understand what these 
people are saying, the fact is, they contradict each other. Sometimes 
you have to go back and look at reality. If they say the increase in 
the use of carbon dioxide and the presence of it is the major thing 
causing anthropogenic gases and global warming temperatures, look at 
what happened right after the war. After the war, they increased the 
use of CO2 by 85 percent. You would think that would 
precipitate a warmer period, but it didn't. It precipitated a cooling 
period. When you get back to the arguments and discrepancies, they 
agree there are problems.
  Along with water vapor and clouds, aerosols, or particles from 
processes such as dust storms, forest fires, the use of fossil fuels, 
and volcanic eruptions, represent another major uncertainty in climate 
modeling. To be sure, there is limited knowledge of how aerosols 
influence the climate system. This, said the National Academy of 
Sciences, represents ``a large source of uncertainty about future 
climate change.''
  Further, the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science 
Program, CCSP, which was reviewed and endorsed by the National Research 
Council, concluded that the ``poorly understood impact of aerosols on 
the formation of both water droplets and ice

[[Page 10940]]

crystals in clouds also results in large uncertainties in the ability 
to project climate changes.''
  Climate researcher and IPCC reviewer Dr. Vincent Gray reached an even 
stronger conclusion, stating that ``the effects of aerosols, and their 
uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any 
climate models.''
  Another issue affecting model reliability is the relative lack of 
available climate data, something the National Research Council 
addressed in 2001. According to the NRC, ``[a] major limitation of 
these model forecasts for use around the world is the paucity of data 
available to evaluate the ability of coupled models to simulate 
important aspects of past climate.''
  There is plenty of evidence to support this conclusion. Consider, for 
example, that most of the surface temperature record covers less than 
50 years and only a few stations are as much as 100 years old. The only 
reliable data come from earth-orbiting satellites that survey the 
entire atmosphere. Notably, while these temperature measurements agree 
with those taken by weather balloons, they disagree considerably with 
the surface record.
  There is also concern of an upward bias in the surface temperature 
record, caused by the ``urban heat island effect.'' Most meteorological 
stations in Western Europe and eastern North America are located at 
airports on the edge of cities, which have been enveloped by urban 
expansion. In the May 30, 2003, issue of Remote Sensing of Environment, 
David Streutker, a Rice University researcher, found an increase in the 
Houston urban heat island effect of nearly a full degree Celsius 
between 1987 and 1999. This study confirmed research published in the 
March 2001 issue of Australian Meteorological Magazine, which 
documented a significant heat island effect even in small towns.
  Although climate modelers have made adjustments to compensate for the 
urban heat island effect, other researchers have shown such adjustments 
are inadequate. University of Maryland researchers Eugenia Kalnay and 
Ming Cai, in Nature magazine, concluded that the effect of urbanization 
and land-use changes on U.S. average temperatures is at least twice as 
large as previously estimated.
  Finally, to expand on a point I raised earlier, climate models are 
helpful in creating so-called ``climate scenarios.'' These scenarios 
help scientists describe how the climate system might evolve. To arrive 
at a particular scenario, scientists rely on model-driven assumptions 
about future levels of economic growth, population growth, greenhouse 
gas emissions, and other factors. However, as with the IPCC, these 
assumptions can create wildly exaggerated scenarios that, to put it 
mildly, have little scientific merit. In 2003, scientists with the 
Federal Climate Change Science Program agreed that potential 
environmental, economic, and technological developments ``are 
unpredictable over the long time-scales relevant for climate 
research.''
  William O'Keefe and Jeff Keuter of the George C. Marshall Institute 
reiterated this point recently. As they wrote, ``The inputs needed to 
project climate for the next 100 years, as is typically attempted, are 
unknowable. Human emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols will be 
determined by the rates of population and economic growth and 
technological change. Neither of these is predictable for more than a 
short period into the future.''
  Put simply, computer model simulations cannot prove that greenhouse 
gas emissions will cause catastrophic global warming. Again, here's the 
National Academy of Sciences: ``The fact that the magnitude of the 
observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as 
simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it 
does not constitute proof of one because--and this is a point I want to 
emphasize--the model simulations could be deficient in natural 
variability on the decadal to century time scale.''
  It's clear that climate models, even with increasing levels of 
sophistication, still contain a number of critical shortcomings. With 
that in mind, policymakers should reject ridiculous statements that 
essentially equate climate model runs with scientific truth.
  As I discussed today, climate modeling is in its infancy. It cannot 
predict future temperatures with reasonable certainty that these 
predictions are accurate. The physical world is exceedingly complex, 
and the more complex the models, the more potential errors are 
introduced into the models. We understand little about how to 
accurately model the troposphere and about the role of aerosols, clouds 
and water vapor. Moreover, there are enormous data gaps in the very 
short temperature records that we have. And surface data often conflict 
with more accurate balloon and satellite data.
  Models can enhance scientists' understanding of the climate system, 
but, at least at this point, cannot possibly serve as a rational basis 
for policymaking. It seems foolish in the extreme to undermine 
America's economic competitiveness with policies based on computer 
projections about what the world will look like in 100 years. In short, 
we have no idea what the world will look like in 20 years, or even 10 
years.
  So this concludes the fourth of the pillars of climate alarmists, 
hopefully just to show the science is flawed.
  I think it is clear, as I mentioned a minute ago, that the science is 
not there. Since 1999, the old argument of Michael Mann, the guy who 
invented the hockey-stick theory, where he was measuring the Earth's 
temperatures, we come into the 20th century--and that is the blade on 
the hockey stick--he intentionally left out the fact that between the 
years 700 A.D. and 1100 A.D., there is another blade on the hockey 
stick that went up the other way and temperatures were warmer than they 
are today.
  If you read the Wharton Econometrics Survey, you will realize what 
will happen to America if we were to sign on to this, the economic 
damage we would have to sustain, the fact it would double the cost of 
energy, double the cost of gasoline to run our cars, and it would cost 
the average American family $2,700, and you have to ask the question: 
If the science is not real and it would inflict that much danger, what 
is the reason we are doing it?
  I think we can find the answer in quoting from Margot Wallstrom. 
Margot Wallstrom is the European Union's Environment Commissioner. She 
states that Kyoto is not about climate change, it is ``about leveling 
the playing field for big businesses worldwide.''
  One of your favorite people, I am sure, French President Jacques 
Chirac, in a speech during The Hague in 2000, said that Kyoto 
represents ``the first component of an authentic global governance.''
  I think we have had an opportunity to discuss this over and over, and 
it is somewhat warming to me to realize that things are not getting 
that much warmer, and if that is happening, the science is not showing 
it is due to anthropogenic gases.
  Consequently, we as policymakers, have to look at this and be sure 
before we make any rash decisions that the science is there. Clearly, 
the science is not there.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Stem Cell Research

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the House of Representatives just minutes 
ago took a historic stand on behalf of the millions of Americans who 
can benefit from the enormous promise of stem cell research. By a vote 
of 238 yeas to 194 nays, the House passed H.R. 810. I congratulate both 
Congressman Castle, a Republican from Delaware, and Congresswoman 
DeGette, a Democrat from Colorado, who led a bipartisan effort in this 
regard to have this very historic vote in the House of Representatives.
  Indeed, a bipartisan majority rejected the restrictive policies of 
this

[[Page 10941]]

administration and voted to expand the number of stem cell lines that 
are eligible for federally funded research. In doing so, they have 
brought new hope to Americans who suffer from diseases such as 
Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes, ALS, as well as spinal cord 
injuries.
  Now it is up to us in the Senate to pass the same bill without 
amendments so we can send it to the President's desk as soon as 
possible. The American people cannot afford to wait any longer for our 
top scientists to realize the full potential of stem cell research.
  Regrettably, research has been stymied and slowed under the 
President's stem cell policy. When President Bush announced his policy, 
the administration said that 78 stem cells lines were eligible for 
federally funded research, meaning they had to be derived before the 
totally arbitrary date and time of August 9, 2001, at 9 p.m. Why it was 
permissible to use stem cell lines derived before 9 p.m. but not at 
9:01 or 9:05 p.m. has always eluded me. Again, it is just an arbitrary 
time and date.
  The administration said there were 78 stem cell lines, but now we 
know today that only 22 of those are available for research, not nearly 
enough to reflect the genetic diversity that scientists need. But more 
importantly, all 22 stem cell lines--all 22--that are available under 
the President's policy are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making 
them useless for humans.
  So the President's policy is not a way forward; it is, indeed, a 
dead-end street. It offers only false hope to the millions of people 
across this country who are suffering from diseases that could be 
potentially cured or treated through stem cell research.
  We need a policy that offers true, meaningful hope to these patients 
and their loved ones. That is why Senator Specter and I, along with 
Senators Hatch, Feinstein, Smith, and Kennedy, introduced a companion 
bill to the Castle-DeGette legislation that just passed the House. Our 
bill expands the number of stem cell lines that federally funded 
scientists can study by lifting the arbitrary eligibility date of 
August 9, 2001.
  Under our legislation, all stem cell lines would be eligible for 
Federal research regardless of the date they were derived, as long as 
they met strict ethical requirements.
  Since August of 2001, scientists have made great strides and great 
advances in deriving stem cell lines. Many of the new lines were grown 
without mouse feeder cells. So I ask, should not our top scientists be 
studying those lines that have great potential and which could be used 
to alleviate human suffering, instead of being limited to the 22 cell 
lines contaminated with mouse cells that will never be used in humans?
  We do not require our astronomers to explore the heavens with 19th 
century telescopes. We do not require our geologists to study the Earth 
with a tape measure. If we are serious about realizing the promise of 
stem cell research, our biomedical researchers need access to the best 
stem cell lines available.
  I also emphasize that none of the additional lines would require the 
creation of any new embryos. Instead, these lines could be derived from 
any of the more than 400,000 embryos that remain from fertility 
treatments and will otherwise be discarded. We are talking about 
embryos that are going to be thrown away, legally. Should we not use 
them instead to ease human suffering?
  Think about this: We have 400,000 frozen embryos left over from in 
vitro fertilization. When a woman who has been a donor of these eggs 
notifies that they are no longer wanted, that she is not going to use 
them--maybe she has already had a child or two and does not need these 
embryos--that person can give permission to discard them. Why should 
that person not be able to give permission to allow them to be used by 
our top scientists for stem cell research that could then save other 
lives? That is what some people are asking us to do--just throw them 
away, do not let them be used for research that could save human 
suffering and save human lives. To this Senator, that simply does not 
make any sense.
  So as I said, we have strict ethical guidelines that are set up so 
that they cannot be used for cloning, they cannot be used for other 
things; only to derive the stem cells. That is all. If there is a 
person who can give the authority right now to the in vitro 
fertilization clinic to discard them, why should that person not have 
the right to say, No, use those frozen embryos to derive stem cells so 
that someone with a spinal cord injury might walk again, so that 
someone with ALS can escape the death sentence, so that someone with 
Parkinson's can be returned to normal functioning?
  The House performed a great public service today. I thank both sides 
of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, who stepped up and voted for 
this bill. By passing the Castle-DeGette bill, they have given hope to 
millions of suffering humans that we will indeed proceed with stem cell 
research that will alleviate their suffering. It is now time for the 
Senate to act.
  So together with Senator Specter, we are going to urge the majority 
leader to bring up the bill as soon as possible and let us have a vote 
in the Senate and get this bill to the President so we can move ahead 
with embryonic stem cell research in this country.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes 
consideration of the Owen nomination tomorrow morning, the time until 
12 noon be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; 
provided further that at noon, all time be expired under rule XXII and 
the Senate proceed to the vote on the confirmation of the nomination 
with no intervening action or debate; and provided further, following 
that vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning 
business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                       HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES


                      marine corporal todd godwin

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to an 
exceptional young man who gave his life in the defense of freedom. 
Marine Cpl Todd Godwin, from Zanesville, OH, died on July 20, 2004, 
when the Humvee he was riding in was struck by shrapnel from a roadside 
explosive in the Al Anbar province in Iraq. He was 21 years old.
  CPL Godwin was a sniper with the 1st Battalion, 8th Marines, 2nd 
Marine Division and was on his second tour-of-duty in Iraq. Always 
ready with a smile or a joke, Todd was an easy going, respectful person 
with a big heart. He was also a Marine through and through--something 
he took very seriously--something he had been training for his whole 
life.
  Born on March 4, 1983, to Bill and Kathy Godwin, Todd was an alert, 
energetic child who grew up with an interest in the military. His 
father remembers him playing with G.I. Joes, wearing fatigues, and 
simulating wars. According to his brother, Aaron, the two boys would 
hang dolls outside and shoot at them with a BB gun, honing their 
targeting skills.
  Apart from these activities, Todd sought to perfect his body. He 
could often be found working out at ``the Fieldhouse'' fitness center 
or practicing his Tae Kwon Do, for which he received two black-belts. 
Whether intentional or not, Todd seemed to be grooming himself for the 
military, acquiring a host of skills that would serve him well in the 
Marines.
  After graduating from Zanesville Christian School in June 2001, he 
joined

[[Page 10942]]

the Marines. His high school principal said that Todd ``had a goal of 
being a Marine, and he wasn't going to let anything get in the way of 
that.''
  Todd excelled as a Marine and completed the intensely competitive and 
selective sniper training to win a spot in the sniper platoon. It was a 
spot he wanted because, according to his mother, ``He wanted to be with 
people who were really serious about what they did.'' Indeed, Todd 
Godwin was a serious Marine who took pride in his duty to defend our 
country and to spread freedom to other parts of the world.
  Todd was an exemplary Marine and also just a good, decent person--the 
type of person others remember as having ``a way about them''--the type 
of person who was quick to smile, who was compassionate, and who was 
good at making people feel at ease. It seems as though everyone who 
knew Todd liked him.
  One of his friends, Austin Thompson, remembers Todd's ability to 
laugh in almost any situation: ``He always had a great sense of humor, 
and he was also very loyal to his friends. He always looked out for 
them and loved to be with them.''
  Todd encouraged one of his friends, Josh Carpenter, to ``hang tough'' 
in Marine boot camp. He wrote a letter to Josh that said, ``I'm sure 
you can't wait to graduate and get some of the comforts of life back. 
Just remember you have to pay your dues, just like every Marine. I'm 
sure you'll do fine--I have confidence you'll succeed.'' Josh had 
joined the Marines because he looked up to Todd. Todd's letter helped 
Josh get through the challenges of boot camp, so that he, too, could be 
one of the few and the proud.
  A letter like that is a little thing, a small deed, but Todd Godwin 
was always doing those ``little things'' for others. That is just who 
he was. When Todd saw that his fiancee's younger brother, Caleb, was 
wearing a U.S. Navy tie clasp, he brought him a Marine clasp to wear, 
instead. It was a small gift that meant a great deal to Caleb, who 
describes Todd as ``my best buddy I ever had.''
  One of Todd's friends from high school, Kimberly Burley, remembers 
another of his deeds that took place on the night of the Zanesville 
Christian School junior-senior banquet:

       It was raining that night, and he came out to greet all the 
     girls at their car with an umbrella.

  Such a gallant act was really typical of Todd. It was just another 
``little thing'' he had done for others.
  But, when we look at all the ``little things'' together--the letters, 
the tie clasps, the way he acted always, the jokes that made people 
smile--we see such a much bigger picture, a picture of an exceptionally 
caring, thoughtful, generous young man. We see that he did the ``little 
things'' for people because he had a very big heart.
  Todd also had big plans. He was engaged to Andrea Mendenhall, whom he 
loved dearly. They were planning on getting married when Todd finished 
his tour of duty in Iraq. Todd and Andrea were going to go to college 
with money Todd was saving through the GI bill. They also talked of 
someday moving to Corpus Christi, TX. These plans, of course, were not 
realized because Todd, once again, was looking out for others, as he 
did all his life. His dreams were put on hold so that others could be 
free and safe and able to fulfill their own dreams.
  Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, a uniform does not make a 
marine. The person wearing that uniform makes a marine. And, each color 
of that uniform signifies the characteristics of the marine inside it. 
Todd Godwin wore his uniform with pride. He exemplified the blue 
standing for bravery, the white standing for honor, and the red 
standing for sacrifice. Unique to the Marine uniform, of course, is the 
bright, red stripe that runs the length of each trouser leg--the 
``bloodstripe.'' It represents all the blood shed by marines in battle. 
It is a red stripe of sacrifice--and for Todd Godwin, it represents the 
ultimate sacrifice.
  Todd was truly a man of faith, who lived the Marine credo ``Semper 
Fidelis,'' which means, of course, ``always faithful.'' Todd was 
forever faithful to his friends and family, through his love and care; 
to his community, through his respect and good deeds; and to his 
country, through his courage and his sacrifice. For all that Todd gave 
us, we honor him today.
  My wife, Fran, and I continue to keep Todd's parents, Bill and Kathy; 
his brother, Aaron; his sisters, Sarah and Anna; his grandparents, 
Clement and Esther Jones; and, the love of his life, Andrea Mendenhall, 
in our thoughts and in our prayers.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________




                  THE HEAD START REAUTHORIZATION BILL

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I cosponsor 1107, the Head Start 
Improvements for School Readiness Act, a bill to reauthorize Head 
Start. I join my colleagues Senators Enzi, Kennedy, and Dodd in support 
of this legislation.
  I would like to see Head Start expanded and serve more children but 
first we must ensure that this program is accountable, financially 
solvent, and meeting the purpose for which it was intended.
  This bill strengthens the Head Start program, making four key 
improvements by:
  No. 1, establishing 200 Centers of Excellence that would serve as 
model Head Start programs across the country;
  No. 2, providing that grantees shall re-compete to receive grants 
every 5 years to help ensure a constant, high level of quality;
  No. 3, clearly defining ``deficiency'' so that local Head Start 
providers know the standards by which they will be held accountable; 
and
  No. 4, providing clear authority to the governing boards to 
administer--and be held accountable for--local Head Start programs 
while ensuring policy councils, on which parents sit, continue to play 
an important advisory role.
  Head Start has been one of our country's most successful and popular 
social programs. That is because it is based upon the principle of 
equal opportunity, which is at the core of the American character. 
Americans uniquely believe that each of us has the right to begin at 
the same starting line and that, if we do, anything is possible for 
anyone one of us.
  We also understand that some of us need help getting to that starting 
line. Most Federal funding for social programs is based upon this 
understanding of equal opportunity. Head Start began in 1965 to make it 
more likely that disadvantaged children would successfully arrive at 
one of the most important of our starting lines: the beginning of 
school.
  Head Start over the years has served hundreds of thousands of our 
most at-risk children. The program has grown and changed. It has been 
subjected to debates and studies touting its successes and decrying its 
deficiencies. But Head Start has stood the test of time because it is 
so very important.
  We have made great progress in what we know about the early growth 
and development of young children since Head Start began in 1965. At 
that time very few professionals had studied early childhood education. 
Even fewer had designed programs specifically for children in poverty 
with their many challenges.
  The origins of Head Start come from an understanding that success for 
these children was not only about education. The program was designed 
to be certain these children were healthy, got their immunizations, 
were fed hot meals, and--of crucial importance--that their parents were 
deeply involved in the program.
  From the beginning comprehensive services and parent and community 
involvement were essential parts of good Head Start programs. And that 
is still true today. In the early days, teacher training and curriculum 
were seen as less important. But we now know a great deal more about 
brain development and how children learn from birth.
  Today young children are expected to learn more and be able to do 
more in order to succeed in school. Public schools offer kindergarten 
in response to these changes. And 40 States now offer early childhood 
programs.

[[Page 10943]]

  As we reauthorize the Head Start program, it is important to 
recognize its importance and commit to making it stronger. But we must 
also recognize that the program is not fulfilling its promise. Head 
Start is not meeting its purpose of serving our children who are most 
at risk when dollars are being squandered by those people who have been 
charged with providing this service. Current practices do not meet my 
personal standard for managing and running a program.
  This bill attempts to address this issue by holding up successful 
local programs so that others may follow their example and by 
clarifying lines of accountability so that any corrupt practices may be 
rooted out. The bill would create a way for States to help strengthen 
and coordinate Head Start, but would continue to send Federal funds 
directly to nearly 1,700 grantees that provide services in over 29,000 
Head Start centers that serve just over 900,000 disadvantaged children.
  First, the bill authorizes the Secretary of HHS to create a 
nationwide network of 200 Centers of Excellence in Early Childhood 
built around exemplary Head Start programs. These Centers of Excellence 
would be nominated by governors. Each Center of Excellence would 
receive a Federal bonus grant of at least $200,000 in each of 5 years, 
in addition to its base funding.
  The Centers of Excellence bonus grants will be used for centers:
  No. 1, to work in their community to model the best of what Head 
Start can do for at-risk children and families, including getting those 
children ready for school and ready for academic success;
  No. 2, to coordinate all early childhood services in their community;
  No. 3, to offer training and support to all professionals working 
with at-risk children;
  No. 4, to track these families and ensure seamless continuity of 
services from prenatal to age 8;
  No. 5, to become models of excellence by all performance measures and 
be willing to be held accountable for good outcomes for our most 
disadvantaged children; and
  No. 6. to have the flexibility to serve additional Head Start or 
Early Head Start children or provide more full-day services to better 
meet the needs of working parents.
  While Head Start centers are uneven in performance, they have 
generally excelled in two areas critical to success in caring for and 
educating children--developing community support and encouraging 
parental involvement. Alex Haley, the author of Roots, lived by these 
six words, ``Find the good and praise it.'' For me that was an 
invaluable lesson. That's what I hope these centers will do.
  In addition to providing for the establishment of Centers of 
Excellence to highlight and encourage better practices among local Head 
Start programs, the bill establishes three new methods for ensuring 
accountability in the management and running of the programs.
  First, it provides that grantees shall re-compete for grants every 5 
years. This ensures that, after 5 years, their program is still meeting 
its standards. I recognize that consistency is very important for the 
Head Start programs, especially for the children served by these 
grants. Many Head Start grantees are doing a very good job 
administering their grants, and I hope this reapplication process will 
highlight their success. To help streamline the process for successful 
programs, grantees that have not been found deficient nor to have had 
an area of noncompliance left unresolved for more than 120 days will 
receive a priority designation during the re-competition process.
  Second, the bill for the first time defines what makes a local 
program ``deficient.'' This will provide clarity for Head Start 
grantees so that they know the precise standards to which they will be 
held. Under the bill, a program may be deemed deficient if it is found 
to threaten the health, safety, or civil rights of children or staff, 
deny parents the exercise of their full roles and responsibilities, 
misuse funds, lose its legal status or financial viability, or violates 
other standards specified in the bill.
  Finally, the bill makes clear that the Governing Board shall be the 
body that is charged with running local programs and which will be held 
accountable for those programs. During our hearing on April 5, we 
learned from Mayor Wharton of Shelby County, TN, and other witnesses, 
that the dual governance structure between the governing board and the 
policy council was inadequate and neither body had decision-making 
authority. This bill gives governing boards direct authority--and holds 
them accountable--while ensuring that policy councils, on which parents 
sit, continue to play an important advisory role in the running of 
local Head Start programs.
  My mother taught me the importance of preschool education. When I was 
growing up, she ran a kindergarten in a converted garage in our 
backyard in Maryville, TN. She helped our community appreciate the 
value of a good preschool program. I have remembered both lessons in 
working with my colleagues to fashion this proposal to bring out the 
best in Head Start.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in advancing this critical 
legislation to ensure the Head Start program meets its full potential.

                          ____________________




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP: CELEBRATING A CENTURY OF EXCELLENCE--1905-2005

 Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of the 
centennial anniversary of Lincoln Financial Group.
  In 1905, Lincoln Financial Group began with one product, one company, 
four employees and a small rented space above a telegraph office in 
downtown Fort Wayne, Indiana. Amid the stir of controversy that gripped 
the big, established insurers at the time, Lincoln's founders 
envisioned a new insurance enterprise--one based on dependability and 
honesty. Believing that the name of Abraham Lincoln would powerfully 
convey this spirit, the founders wrote the 16th President's only 
surviving son, Robert Todd Lincoln, to ask for permission to use a 
portrait of his father on the company stationery. Robert Todd Lincoln 
agreed, and that is how Lincoln's legacy began with a name that 
reflects its character.
  Since its founding, Lincoln Financial has consistently leveraged its 
strong capital foundation to grow. From 1905-1955, Lincoln Life grew to 
become the ninth largest life insurance company in the United States. 
Even during the Great Depression, Lincoln acquired three companies. In 
1968, Lincoln National Corporation was formed as an Indiana 
corporation. At the time, it was one of the first holding companies in 
the insurance industry.
  In the last decades of the 20th century, Lincoln transformed itself 
from a life insurance company into a nationally recognized financial 
services enterprise. The corporation adopted the name Lincoln Financial 
Group as its marketing name in 1998. In addition to Fort Wayne, Lincoln 
maintains primary offices in Philadelphia, PA; Hartford, CT; Chicago, 
IL; Portland, ME; and Barnwood, Gloucester, England.
  Today, Lincoln is a family of companies working together to provide 
an array of financial planning, retirement income, life insurance, 
annuity, mutual fund, and investment management solutions to its 
clients. As of year-end 2004, Lincoln had consolidated assets of $116 
billion and annual consolidated revenues of $5.4 billion in 2004.
  Lincoln's growth has been spurred by a corporate culture that rewards 
creativity and believes that success is derived from a diverse and 
talented workforce. The people of Lincoln have always valued the trust 
customers place in the company each time they seek financial advice, 
purchase a Lincoln product or recommend the company to a friend. The 
company has seven shared

[[Page 10944]]

values that reflect the principles expressed by its namesake and 
characterize the quality of its products: integrity; commitment to 
excellence; responsibility; respect; fairness; diversity; and employee 
ownership.
  Lincoln's sense of responsibility shapes not only its business 
practices, but also its commitment to the communities where it 
operates. Since its founding, Lincoln has recognized that investing in 
these communities is fundamental to its success. The company's spirit 
of philanthropy led to the establishment of the Lincoln Financial Group 
Foundation in 1962, which further inspired a rich tradition of giving. 
Today, Lincoln sets aside 2 percent of its pre-tax earnings for 
philanthropy. Over the past 30 years, the Lincoln Financial Group 
Foundation has given over $70 million in charitable giving in Indiana.
  In addition to the company's monetary donations, its employees bring 
the company's spirit of philanthropy to life every day. Collectively, 
they donate thousands of hours each year in personal volunteerism and 
participation in various company-sponsored community activities. To 
encourage and recognize their efforts, Lincoln provides employees with 
paid time off to participate in various volunteer projects. The 
company's Matching Gifts program to colleges and universities also 
maximizes employee donations. From food drives to donating blood, 
homebuilding projects to tutoring, Lincoln employees actively make a 
difference in the communities they call home.
  As it celebrates its centennial, Lincoln's name gives a distinctive 
character to its legacy.
  As the next 100 years begin, there is much to celebrate for the 
company as it looks to build a future of opportunity, focused on its 
shared values.

                          ____________________




                   HONORING THE CITY OF REDFIELD, SD

 Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and publicly 
recognize the 125th anniversary of the founding of the city of 
Redfield, SD. As the 125th anniversary approaches, Redfield looks back 
on a proud history and looks forward to a promising future.
  Located in east central South Dakota, Redfield is the county seat for 
Spink County, the largest wheat-producing county in our State. First 
settled in 1878 by Frank Meyers and a party of Chicago and Northwestern 
surveyors, Redfield was originally known as ``Stennett Junction;'' 
named after an official with the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad. The 
term ``Junction'' was added in anticipation of the railroad's 
popularity. Meyers established the first post office in 1880, thus 
marking the town's official birth. In February of 1881, however, the 
town's name was changed to Redfield, after Joseph Barlow Redfield, an 
auditor with the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Company who 
purchased a great deal of the area's land for investors in Chicago.
  Although Redfield now serves as the county seat for Spink County, 
prior to 1886, that was not the case. In fact, Redfield supporters 
fought a contentious and controversial county seat battle between Old 
Ashton, Ashton, Frankfort and Redfield. Despite these efforts, old 
Ashton retained its position as county seat. All that changed, however, 
in 1886, when Redfield honestly won the majority of the votes in Spink 
County and was awarded the seat it still proudly claims.
  Among the city's many landmarks is the historic Carnegie Library. In 
1902, Redfield welcomed a grant from the Andrew Carnegie Foundation 
that made the library possible. This contribution transformed a simple 
reading club into a majestic red brick building adorned with a tan 
sandstone foundation, a domed cupola and beautiful oak columns and 
woodwork. In the library's early years, it housed the Redfield city 
offices, in addition to the collections; the City Auditor doubled as 
librarian. Recently, I had the pleasure of helping the community of 
Redfield secure $100,000 to renovate and expand this historic 
structure, which is the oldest continuous-use Carnegie Library in South 
Dakota.
  The South Dakota Developmental Center, SDDC, is another notable 
Redfield landmark. Opened in 1902, the SDDC originally housed the staff 
and the patients in a single building, which is still used for office 
space today. There are currently 175 disabled individuals receiving 
services from SDDC today, ranging in age from 13 months to 78 years of 
age. Their disabilities range from moderate to profound.
  Redfield also is home to one of the last surviving drive-in movie 
theaters. Erected in 1952, Pheasant City Drive-in Theater still 
entertains more than 2,800 Redfield residents.
  In the twelve and a half decades since its founding, Redfield has 
proven its ability to thrive and serve farmers and ranchers throughout 
the region. Redfield's proud residents celebrate its 125th anniversary 
July 1-3, 2005, and it is with great honor that I share with my 
colleagues the achievements made by this great community.

                          ____________________




          FRIENDS AND FOOD FOR FIFTY YEARS IN ST. ANTHONY, ID

 Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, there is a small town in Idaho that 
celebrates a very special anniversary this year. Fifty years ago in 
1955, the St. Anthony, ID Chamber of Commerce paid for travelers to 
have coffee and donuts at any of the local cafes to celebrate the 
opening day of fishing season. The effort, which encouraged fishermen 
and women to stop in St. Anthony for supplies, was so successful that 
this tiny town decided to prepare and serve a full breakfast of 
pancakes, sausage, hash browns and beverages for hungry travelers every 
year. By 1966, 10,000 people were served over the course of one day, 
more than three times the current population of the town. Today, about 
5,000 people a year get to enjoy the great food and super hospitality 
of this small town in southeast Idaho that serves as a gateway to the 
Snake River and some of the best fishing in the West.
  I congratulate the St. Anthony Chamber of Commerce and all of the 
volunteers who this year and in years past have come together to give 
people a smile, laughter and a delicious hot breakfast.

                          ____________________




                    CHILDREN'S HOSPICE INTERNATIONAL

 Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, on May 23 of this year, Children's 
Hospice International celebrates its 22nd anniversary of helping 
children with life-threatening illnesses find comfort and care through 
hospice care programs around the country and the world.
  Several members of this distinguished body, including former Senate 
Majority Leader Robert K. Dole of Kansas and former Senator Claiborne 
Pell of Rhode Island, were among the organization's early supporters 
because they recognized the need to provide comprehensive hospice care 
for children who are suffering from difficult medical conditions.
  In 1977, when CHI was founded by Ann Armstrong-Dailey, there were no 
hospice care programs for children in the United States. In 1983, only 
four of 1,400 hospice programs in the United States were willing to 
accept children. Now, close to 450 of 3,000 U.S. hospices include 
child-specific services. And while that is good news, there is much 
more to be done.
  Of the 10 million children in America who are living with a serious 
chronic condition, each year about 54,000 will die; another 1.3 million 
will live but could greatly benefit from hospice and palliative care.
  Historically, hospice reimbursement guidelines, in Medicaid and most 
private plans, have required that patients forego all life-saving care 
before they can be admitted to hospice. They have also required the 
patient to be within the last 6 months of life. However, this does not 
work with pediatric patients for whom aggressive treatment is sought 
and life-expectancy cannot be estimated.
  Families should not be expected to give up on hope for a cure in 
order to receive that help. Because of the unpredictable course of many 
serious childhood illnesses, it is often very difficult for doctors to 
know when a child is

[[Page 10945]]

within 6 months of death. Parents should not have to choose between 
hospice care and the hope for a cure. Parents should not have to keep 
their child in a hospital or other facility simply because insurance 
will not pay for the child to receive the same care, at a lower cost, 
at home.
  The most critical time for children and family members is at the 
point of diagnosis--when they need the intensive support and guidance 
that hospice and palliative care programs can provide.
  Since 1997, CHI has worked with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services, CMS, to set up the Program for All-Inclusive Care for 
Children and their Families, CHI PACC. CHI PACC programs provide a 
continuum of care for children and their families from time of 
diagnosis, with hope for a cure, through bereavement, if needed.
  With Congressional support, a total of 18 States are already 
benefiting from this initiative through CHI PACC programs in six States 
and two regions. States currently implementing CHI PACC are Colorado, 
Florida, Kentucky, New York, Virginia, and my home State of Utah, which 
will be among the first to implement this model.
  Utah has been one of the leaders in this effort. Utah's Department of 
Health has spearheaded the effort in Utah, and the Primary Children's 
Medical Center in Salt Lake City, UT has been a central point of 
developing these pediatric palliative services to assist families from 
the point of diagnosis.
  The New England Region is also preparing to implement CHI PACC to 
serve six States--Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
Rhode Island and Vermont. The Colorado program extends to patients in 
six additional States--Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, South 
Dakota and Wyoming. In Pennsylvania, the Department of Defense is 
working to adopt the CHI PACC model for its health care system. The 
goal of all of these efforts is to prove the effectiveness of the CHI 
PACC model so that it can be adopted universally through Medicaid, S-
SCHIP and private insurers.
  As we approach Memorial Day, it should be noted that Children's 
Hospice International is a living memorial to Ensign Alan H. Armstrong 
and his shipmates lost aboard the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans during the 
conflict in Vietnam. Armstrong is the brother of CHI Founder Ann 
Armstrong-Dailey. I deeply appreciate Ensign Armstrong's service to our 
country.
  I commend Children's Hospice International on its 22nd anniversary as 
it seeks to remove the roadblocks in private and public insurance 
programs that prevent these children and their families from receiving 
the care and support they need.
  I too believe in the vision that Ann Armstrong-Dailey, along with 
original honorary board members Barbara Bush, and Senators Claiborne 
Pell and Robert Dole, put forth 22 years ago when they launched this 
very important effort to provide dignified care and support to children 
with life-threatening conditions and their families.

                          ____________________




                       NATIONAL HISTORY DAY 2005

 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I wish to say a few words 
about National History Day. For the past 25 years, National History Day 
has provided students in grades 6-12 with opportunities to study 
different periods or trends in American history. National History Day 
is a year-long educational opportunity for students to examine a period 
of American history closely through extensive research, development of 
exhibits and presentations, and multimedia documentaries. This year's 
national competition topic is ``Communication in History,'' and the 
competition will be held on the campus of the University of Maryland in 
June.
  I am especially proud of the students from my State of North Dakota 
who have been selected to participate in this program this year. These 
students participated in the North Dakota State competition and were 
selected to represent the State in the national competition. They 
include Edward Gallegos, Kelbi Clarke, Lyndsie Cossel, Sejal Parikh, 
Sarak Shirek, Amirah Ahmed, Amber Guseman, Annah Klamm, Meghan Graham, 
Katie Sanner and Amanda Malm from Grand Forks. They also include Erin 
Droske, Aaron Christianson, Jessica King, Micah Gilleshammer and Sarah 
Lunde of St. Thomas. These students represent the Schroeder Middle 
School and Red River High School in Grand Forks and the St. Thomas 
Public School in St. Thomas, ND. I congratulate them and wish them much 
success in the national competition.

                          ____________________




                         MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

  At 12:10 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered 
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced the the House has 
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the 
Senate:

       H.R. 29. An act to protect users of the Internet from 
     unknowing transmission of their personally identifiable 
     information through spyware programs, and for other purposes.
       H.R. 32. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     provide criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit 
     marks.
       H.R. 606. An act to authorize appropriations to the 
     Secretary of the Interior for the restoration of the Angel 
     Island Immigration Station in the State of California.
       H.R. 744. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     discourage spyware, and for other purposes.
       H.R. 849. An act to provide for the conveyance of certain 
     public land in Clark County, Nevada, for use as a heliport.
       H.R. 1101. An act to revoke a Public Land Order with 
     respect to certain lands erroneously included in the Cibola 
     National Wildlife Refuge, California.
       H.R. 1499. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to allow members of the Armed Forces serving in a combat 
     zone to make contributions to their individual retirement 
     plans even if the compensation on which such contribution is 
     based is excluded from gross income, and for other purposes.
       H.R. 2046. An act to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief 
     Act to limit premium increases on reinstated health insurance 
     on servicemembers who are released from active military 
     service, and for other purposes.
       H.R. 2066. An act to amend title 40, United States Code, to 
     establish a Federal Acquisition Service, to replace the 
     General Supply Fund and the Information Technology Fund with 
     an Acquisition Services Fund, and for other purposes.

  The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following 
concurrent resolutions, in which it requests the concurrence of the 
Senate:

       H. Con. Res. 89. Concurrent resolution honoring the life of 
     Sister Dorothy Stang.
       H. Con. Res. 149. Concurrent recognizing the 57th 
     anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel.
       H. Con. Res. 153. Concurrent resolution welcoming His 
     Excellency Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan, on the 
     occasion of his visit to the United States in May 2005 and 
     expressing support for a strong and enduring strategic 
     partnership between the United States and Afghanistan.

                          ____________________




                           MEASURES REFERRED

  The following bills were read the first and the second times by 
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

       H.R. 29. An act to protect users of the Internet from 
     unknowing transmission of their personally identifiable 
     information through spyware programs, and for other purposes; 
     to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       H.R. 32. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     provide criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit 
     marks; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       H.R. 606. An act to authorize appropriations to the 
     Secretary of the Interior for the restoration of the Angel 
     Island Immigration Station in the State of California; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
       H.R. 744. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     discourage spyware, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary.
       H.R. 849. An act to provide for the conveyance of certain 
     public land in Clark County, Nevada, for use as a heliport; 
     to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
       H.R. 1101. An act to revoke a Public Land Order with 
     respect to certain lands erroneously included in the Cibola 
     National Wildlife Refuge, California; to the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources.
       H.R. 1499. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to allow a deduction to members of the Armed Forces 
     serving in a combat zone for contributions to their 
     individual retirement plans even if the compensation on which 
     such contribution is based is excluded from gross income, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page 10946]]


       H.R. 2046. An act to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief 
     Act to limit premium increases on reinstated health insurance 
     on servicemembers who are released from active military 
     service, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs.
       H.R. 2066. An act to amend title 40, United States Code, to 
     establish a Federal Acquisition Service, to replace the 
     General Supply Fund and the Information Technology Fund with 
     an Acquisition Services Fund, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

  The following concurrent resolutions were read, and referred as 
indicated:

       H. Con. Res. 89. Concurrent resolution honoring the life of 
     Sister Dorothy Stang; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       H. Con. Res. 149. Concurrent resolution recognizing the 
     57th anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel; 
     to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
       H. Con. Res. 153. Concurrent resolution welcoming His 
     Excellency Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan, on the 
     occasion of his visit to the United States in May 2005 and 
     expressing support for a strong and enduring strategic 
     partnership between the United States and Afghanistan; to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations.

                          ____________________




                    MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

  The following bill was read the second time, and placed on the 
calendar:

       S. 1098. A bill to prevent abuse of the special allowance 
     subsidies under the Federal Family Education Loan Program.

                          ____________________




                        PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

  The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and 
were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated.

       POM-57. A resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the 
     State of Ohio relative to the exclusion of the 179th Airlift 
     Wing, Ohio Air National guard, at the Mansfield Lahm airport 
     from the list of base closures for the Base Realignment and 
     Closure process; to the Committee on Armed Services.

                        Concurrent Resolution 9

       Whereas the 179th Airlift Wing, Ohio Air National Guard, at 
     the Mansfield Lahm Airport in Mansfield, Ohio, has a mission 
     ``to develop highly qualified operations, logistics, support 
     and medical professionals who provide airlift to serve the 
     state and nation'' and a vision to ``be an outstanding 
     airlift unit with a reputation for professionalism and world-
     class service--our customers' first choice''; and
       Whereas the 179th Airlift Wing has won several awards, 
     including the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, the Alan P. 
     Tappan Memorial Trophy, and the Rusty Metcalf Award, the 
     latter of which acknowledges the unit as one of the best in 
     the Air Force, and all of these awards demonstrate the high 
     capability of the unit and the unit's ability to perform at 
     the Mansfield Lahm Airport; and
       Whereas Congress authorized a new round of the Base 
     Realignment and Closure process to occur this year, which has 
     the potential to affect the 179th Airlift Wing, Ohio National 
     Guard, and the community of Mansfield that supports the unit; 
     and
       Whereas the 179th Airlift Wing is active in the community 
     through various events and organizations, employs 
     approximately 1,000 individuals, and provides economic 
     support and benefits to the city of Mansfield and the 
     surrounding communities; now therefore be it
       Resolved, That the 126th General Assembly of the State of 
     Ohio supports the 179th Airlift Wing, Ohio Air National 
     Guard, at the Mansfield Lahm Airport and firmly believes that 
     the unit and base should not be included in the Defense Base 
     Closure and Realignment Commission's list of proposed bases 
     to be closed, as it is a valuable asset to the state of Ohio 
     and the defense of our nation, and memorializes Congress to 
     take appropriate action so that this base is not included in 
     the Commission's list; and be it further
       Resolved, That the Clerk of the Senate transmit duly 
     authenticated copies of this resolution to the President of 
     the United States, the Secretary of Defense of the United 
     States, the members of the Ohio Congressional delegation, the 
     Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of 
     Representatives, the President Pro Tempore and the Secretary 
     of the United States Senate, and the news media of Ohio.
                                  ____

       POM-58. A resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the 
     State of Ohio relative to the exclusion of the 178th Fighter 
     Wing, Ohio Air National Guard, at the Springfield-Beckley 
     Municipal Airport in Springfield, Ohio from the list of base 
     closures for the Base Realignment and Closure process; to the 
     Committee on Armed Services.

                        Concurrent Resolution 10

       Whereas the 178th Fighter Wing, Ohio Air National Guard at 
     the Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport in Springfield, 
     Ohio, trains the fighter pilots of the future, and its goals 
     are to have highly trained professionals providing world-
     class training air combat capability and resources in times 
     of national emergency or war and to provide protection of 
     life and property and to preserve peace, order, and public 
     safety during natural disasters; and
       Whereas in addition to working to protect our nation by 
     sending unit members to participate in engagements around the 
     world, the 178th Fighter Wing works in the community, 
     participating in such activities as the Adopt-A-Family 
     program, the Combined Federal Campaign, Help-A-Needy Family 
     program, and Red Cross blood drives, as well as other 
     activities; and
       Whereas Congress authorized a new round of the Base 
     Realignment and Closure process (BRAC) to occur this year, 
     which has the potential to affect the 178th Fighter Wing, the 
     base, and the community of Springfield that supports the 
     base; and
       Whereas the unit is a key component of the community, 
     employing approximately 409 people in the unit, and the 
     airport provides for air travel and cargo needs for citizens 
     and business in the region; now therefore be it
       Resolved, That the 126th General Assembly of the State of 
     Ohio supports the 178th Fighter Wing, Ohio Air National Guard 
     at the Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport and firmly 
     believes that the unit and the base should not be included in 
     the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission's list of 
     proposed bases to be closed, as it is a valuable asset to the 
     state of Ohio and the defense of our nation, and memorializes 
     Congress to take appropriate action so that this base is not 
     included in the Commission's closure list; and be it further
       Resolved, That the Clerk of the Senate transmit duly 
     authenticated copies of this resolution to the President of 
     the United States, the Secretary of Defense of the United 
     States, the members of the Ohio Congressional delegation, the 
     Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of 
     Representatives, the President Pro Tempore and the Secretary 
     of the United States Senate, and the news media of Ohio.
                                  ____

       POM-59. A resolution adopted by the House of 
     Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania relative 
     to a postage stamp commemorating coal miners; to the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

                          House Resolution 108

       Whereas our entire nation owes our coal miners a great deal 
     more than we could ever repay them for the difficult and 
     dangerous job which they perform so that we can have the fuel 
     we need to operate our industries and to heat our homes; and
       Whereas coal mining is as much of a culture as it is an 
     industry; and
       Whereas coal miners sacrifice life and limb for little 
     recognition, and it would be proper and fitting for our 
     nation to recognize our coal miners, past and present, for 
     their contributions; therefore be it
       Resolved, That the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of 
     Pennsylvania memorialize the Citizens' Stamp Advisory 
     Committee of the United States Postal Service to issue a 
     commemorative stamp honoring our coal miners and their 
     contributions to our nation and its citizens; and be it 
     further
       Resolved, That copies of this resolution be delivered to 
     the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, c/o Stamp 
     Development, United States Postal Service, 1735 North Lynn 
     Street, Room 5013, Arlington, VA 22209-6432, to the presiding 
     officers of each house of congress and to each member of 
     Congress from Pennsylvania.
                                  ____

       POM-60. A resolution adopted by the House of 
     Representatives of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth 
     of Kentucky relative to legislation urging the Federal 
     Communications Commission not to preempt state do not call 
     legislation; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.

                          House Resolution 191

       Whereas the Commonwealth of Kentucky has enacted 
     legislation, KRS 367.46951 et seq., to protect the privacy of 
     Kentucky consumers from unwanted, unsolicited telemarketing 
     phone calls and created a ``zero call list'' on which 
     Kentucky consumers may place their residential phone numbers 
     and which numbers may not be called by telemarketers for the 
     purpose of making a telephone solicitation as defined by 
     Kentucky law, and which list is administered by the Office of 
     Attorney General; and
       Whereas the United States Federal Trade Commission and 
     Federal Communications Commission have established a federal 
     registry, the National Do Not Call Registry, on which 
     Kentucky consumers may have their residential phone numbers 
     placed for purposes of preventing telemarketers from making 
     unsolicited telephone solicitations, which list is 
     administered by the Federal Trade Commission and enforced by 
     the Federal Trade Commission as well as the Federal 
     Communications Commission and the Attorneys General of the 50 
     states; and
       Whereas the Attorney General has implemented the Kentucky 
     zero call list effectively and enforced the Kentucky and 
     federal law in such a manner as to dramatically reduce the 
     number of complaints from Kentucky consumers regarding 
     unsolicited telemarketing calls; and

[[Page 10947]]

       Whereas the Kentucky House of Representatives is aware that 
     petitions are pending before the Federal Communications 
     Commission which seek to declare state laws in Wisconsin, New 
     Jersey, North Dakota and Indiana preempted by federal 
     telemarketing legislation, the Telephone Consumer Protection 
     Act, 47 U.S.C. sec. 227; and
       Whereas the Kentucky House of Representatives wishes to 
     express its satisfaction with the enforcement efforts of the 
     Office of the Attorney General to date and its desire that 
     these efforts continue in the future; and
       Whereas neither the Telephone Consumer Protection Act nor 
     any other federal law expressly or by reasonable implication 
     preempts KRS 367.46951 et seq., nor any other state 
     telemarketing legislation establishing a state do not call 
     registry; now therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives of the General 
     Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:
       Section 1. The House of Representatives urges the Federal 
     Communications Commission to clearly state that the National 
     Do Not Call Registry does not preempt Kentucky's zero call 
     list.
       Section 2. The House of Representatives also urges the 
     legislature of each state that has not yet done so to make a 
     similar request to the Federal Communications Commission.
       Section 3. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall 
     transmit copies of this Resolution to the President and Vice 
     President of the United States, the presiding officer in each 
     house of the legislature in each of the states in the Union, 
     the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, 
     the President of the United States Senate, and to each member 
     of the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Congressional Delegation.
                                  ____

       POM-61. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the General 
     Assembly of the State of Ohio relative to the Energy Policy 
     Act of 1992; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.

                         Senate Resolution 35s

       Whereas the United States; increasing dependence on 
     imported oil and the relative instability of foreign oil-
     producing countries prompted Congress to enact the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992. The policy goals of the Act are to reduce 
     our nation's reliance on foreign petroleum and to improve air 
     quality; and
       Whereas to achieve these goals, certain portions of the Act 
     establish provisions that are designed to encourage the use 
     of alternative fuels. One such provision, 42 U.S.C. 13257(o), 
     specifies that pursuant to rules adopted by the Department of 
     Energy, 75% of new light duty motor vehicles acquired 
     annually for state government fleets must be alternative 
     fueled vehicles; and
       Whereas rules adopted by the Department of Energy, which 
     are codified at 10 C.F.R. Part 490 and are commonly known as 
     the Energy Policy Act State and Alternative Fuel Provider 
     Rules, exclude electric-hybrid vehicles that run in part on 
     gasoline from the definition of ``alternative fueled 
     vehicle,'' thus prohibiting states from receiving credit 
     toward the alternative fueled vehicle quota for the 
     acquisition of an electric-hybrid vehicle; and
       Whereas this inability of states to use electric-hybrid 
     vehicles in order to receive credit toward the quota is 
     unfortunate and, in fact, does not make sense because these 
     vehicles exhibit excellent fuel efficiency that would serve 
     to accomplish the policy goals of the Energy Policy Act of 
     1992 by reducing dependence on petroleum products; now 
     therefore be it
       Resolved, That we the members of the Senate of the 126th 
     General Assembly of Ohio, request Congress to amend the 
     Energy Policy Act of 1992 to specify that an electric-hybrid 
     vehicle must receive credit as being an alternative fueled 
     vehicle for purposes of the requirement that 75% of new light 
     duty motor vehicles acquired annually for state government 
     fleets be alternative fueled vehicles, and be it further
       Resolved, That the Clerk of the Senate transmit daily 
     authenticated copies of this resolution to the Speaker and 
     Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, to the 
     President Pro Tempore and Secretary of the United States 
     Senate, to the members of the Ohio Congressional delegation, 
     to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the General 
     Assembly of Ohio, and to the news media of Ohio.
                                  ____

       POM-62. A resolution adopted by the House of 
     Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Michigan 
     relative to highway funding; to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation.

                     House Concurrent Resolution 4

       Whereas the sixth short-term extension of the federal road 
     and transit funding authorization act known as the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA 21, 
     expires on May 31, 2005. The uncertainty regarding long-term 
     federal funding hampers Michigan's ability to effectively 
     plan investments in infrastructure and may contribute to 
     delays in critical highway and transit projects; and
       Whereas Michigan has long been a ``donor state,'' 
     contributing a greater share to the Federal Highway Trust 
     Fund and Mass Transit Account than the share of federal 
     transportation funds returned for use in Michigan; and
       Whereas last session, the United States Senate passed 
     highway reauthorization legislation that would have provided 
     $318 billion for highways and transit systems nationwide over 
     six years and increased Michigan's rate of return on our 
     federal transportation taxes from 90.5 percent to 95 percent. 
     In addition, the bill would have provided up to $300 million 
     more for Michigan transportation systems each year, and could 
     have created several thousand new jobs. The House passed 
     reauthorizing legislation that would have provided $284 
     billion for highways and transit systems and would have 
     reduced Michigan's rate of return below the current level of 
     90.5 percent. The Conference Committee narrowed the funding 
     difference to between $284 and $299 billion, but left 
     unRESOLVED the question of funding equity for donor states 
     such as Michigan; now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That we memorialize Congress to enact highway 
     reauthorization legislation with a level of funding that 
     closes the gap between federal fuel tax dollars paid by 
     Michigan motorists and dollars received to address Michigan's 
     transportation needs; and be it further
       Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to 
     the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the 
     United States House of Representatives, and the members of 
     the Michigan congressional delegation.
                                  ____

       POM-63. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the 
     State of Michigan relative to highway funding; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

                    Senate Concurrent Resolution 12

       Whereas the sixth short-term extension of the federal road 
     and transit funding authorization act known as the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA 21, 
     expires on May 31, 2005. The uncertainty regarding long-term 
     federal funding hampers Michigan's ability to effectively 
     plan investments in infrastructure and may contribute to 
     delays in critical highway and transit projects; and
       Whereas Michigan has long been a ``donor state,'' 
     contributing a greater share to the Federal Highway Trust 
     Fund and Mass Transit Account than the share of federal 
     transportation funds returned for use in Michigan; and
       Whereas last session, the United States Senate passed 
     highway reauthorization legislation that would have provided 
     $318 billion for highways and transit systems nationwide over 
     six years and increased Michigan's rate of return on our 
     federal transportation taxes from 90.5 percent to 95 percent. 
     In addition, the bill would have provided up to $300 million 
     more for Michigan transportation systems each year, and could 
     have created several thousand new jobs. The House passed 
     reauthorizing legislation that would have provided $284 
     billion for highways and transit systems and would have 
     reduced Michigan's rate of return below the current level of 
     90.5 percent. The Conference Committee narrowed the funding 
     difference to between $284 and $299 billion, but left 
     unresolved the question of funding equity for donor states 
     such as Michigan; now, therefore be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That we memorialize Congress to enact highway 
     reauthorization legislation with a level of funding that 
     closes the gap between federal fuel tax dollars paid by 
     Michigan motorists and dollars received to address Michigan's 
     transportation needs; and be it further
       Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to 
     the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the 
     United States House of Representatives, and the members of 
     the Michigan congressional delegation.
                                  ____

       POM-64. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature 
     of the State of North Dakota relative to the Grand Forks 
     Automated Flight Service Station; to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

                    House Concurrent Resolution 3058

       Whereas the Grand Forks Automated Flight Service Station 
     provides pilots with weather and aeronautical data to help 
     them make critical and often lifesaving decisions; and
       Whereas whether assisting University of North Dakota 
     student pilots, coordinating air ambulance flights to our 
     rural communities, relaying data to commercial operators 
     flying passengers and supplies over the state, often in the 
     worst of weather, or assisting the military in matters of 
     national security, the Grand Forks Automated Flight Service 
     Station provides an invaluable service that is intimately 
     related to the public interest; and
       Whereas the Grand Forks Automated Flight Service Station is 
     responsible for the continuous monitoring of international 
     border air space and daily support of the missions of the 
     Minot Air Force Base, Grand Forks Air Force Base, Fargo Air 
     National Guard, and Bismarck National Guard flight 
     operations; and

[[Page 10948]]

       Whereas maintaining the Grand Forks Automated Flight 
     Service Station with proper staffing levels and equipment is 
     a fundamental necessity in the continuation of these crucial 
     services; and
       Whereas the Federal Aviation Administration is primarily 
     responsible for the safety and security of aviation; Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives of North Dakota, 
     the Senate Concurring therein:
       That the Fifty-ninth Legislative Assembly urges the Federal 
     Aviation Administration to maintain the Grand Forks Automated 
     Flight Service Station as a federal air traffic facility 
     properly staffed by government employees; and be it further
       Resolved, That the Secretary of State forward copies of 
     this resolution to the President and Vice President of the 
     United States, the administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, and to each member of the United States 
     Senate and United States House of Representatives.
                                  ____

       POM-65. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the General 
     Assembly of the State of Tennessee relative to federal 
     reauthorization of federal-aid highway and transit programs; 
     to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

                          Senate Resolution 13

       Whereas legislation to reauthorize the federal-aid highway 
     and transit programs is more than 17 months overdue; and
       Whereas the six short-term program extensions enacted by 
     the U.S. Congress have forced states and localities to delay 
     construction of critical highway and transit projects, 
     impeded job creation, and postponed life-saving safety 
     improvements and the completion of congestion-reducing 
     measures; and
       Whereas further delay will increase project costs and 
     dilute the purchasing power of federal transportation 
     dollars; and
       Whereas investments in transportation are investments in 
     people, and our transportation network is the means through 
     which our children return from school safely, aging Americans 
     and the disabled gain mobility, and commuters have affordable 
     mass transit options to get to work; and
       Whereas a well-functioning transportation system is 
     critical to America's security, productivity and global 
     competitiveness; and
       Whereas inadequate funding proposals impede the ability of 
     the U.S. Congress to reach agreement on a long-term bill; 
     now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate of the One Hundred Fourth General 
     Assembly of the State of Tennessee, that the Senate hereby 
     most fervently urges and encourages the U.S. Congress and the 
     administration to immediately enact a well-funded, multi-year 
     reauthorization of federal highway and transit programs, be 
     it further
       Resolved, That enrolled copies of this resolution be 
     transmitted to the President, the Vice President, the 
     Secretary of Transportation and to each member of Tennessee's 
     congressional delegation.
                                  ____

       POM-66. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the 
     Legislature of the State of Louisiana relative to Weekly 
     Natural Gas Storage Report procedures; to the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources.

                        Senate Resolution No. 6

       Whereas Louisiana serves as a major energy source and hub 
     for the entire nation; and
       Whereas information that impacts energy markets throughout 
     the nation is of critical importance to Louisiana; and
       Whereas the Department of Energy, Energy Information 
     Administration (EIA), solicited public comments regarding its 
     present policies and procedures concerning revision of 
     information contained in the Weekly Natural gas Storage 
     Report; and
       Whereas the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report identifies 
     the amount of natural gas stored and the amount withdrawn in 
     underground storage on a weekly basis; and
       Whereas the contents of such report are critical factors in 
     the pricing of natural gas, and have a direct and immediate 
     impact upon markets and consumers; and
       Whereas the EIA's current revision policy provides that any 
     errors in the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report will not be 
     corrected for up to one week; and
       Whereas such policy is seriously flawed, as demonstrated by 
     the events of November 24, 2004; and
       Whereas the November 24, 2004, Weekly Natural Gas Storage 
     Report contained information that had been submitted with a 
     clerical error; and
       Whereas shortly after such information had been submitted, 
     EIA personnel requested that the company review the accuracy 
     of its submission; and
       Whereas within thirty minutes from EIA's request the 
     correct information was obtained and submitted to EIA; and
       Whereas although EIA and private sector personnel acted 
     promptly and appropriately to discover and correct the 
     clerical error, the contents oft he Weekly Natural Gas 
     Storage Report were not publicly revise, updated, or 
     corrected, due to EIA's regulations preventing the disclosure 
     and dissemination of such information until the next week's 
     report; and
       Whereas such failure and delay in disclosure and 
     dissemination of the corrected information had disastrous 
     economic consequence, in that Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission analysts later estimated the cost to the 
     marketplace in relying upon the erroneous and uncorrected 
     information was between $200 million and $1 billion; and
       Whereas such cost is an unconscionable burden upon 
     consumers and businesses for an easily correctable and 
     actually corrected error, especially when it is within the 
     powers of agencies overseeing the report process to diminish 
     these costs by prompt disclosure and dissemination of revised 
     information; and
       Whereas under 15 U.S.C.A. Sec. 764(b)(5), the secretary of 
     energy has the duty to ``promote stability in energy prices 
     to the consumer, promote free and open competition in all 
     aspects of the energy field prevent unreasonable profits . . 
     . and promote free enterprise''; and
       Whereas in light of the events of November 24th, the Energy 
     Information Administration has proposed new policies and 
     procedures concerning the disclosure and dissemination of 
     revised or corrected information; and
       Whereas Congress should act to ensure that the proposed 
     changes promote market fairness and equality by mandating the 
     corrected information is disclosed and disseminated rapidly, 
     and that all participants in the natural gas industry markets 
     have the ability to obtain essential information at he same 
     time, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana memorializes 
     the Congress of the United States to require Weekly Natural 
     Gas Storage Report policies and procedures that mandate the 
     prompt disclosure and dissemination of corrected information, 
     in order to promote market equality and fairness, be it 
     further
       Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution shall be 
     transmitted to the secretary of the United States Senate and 
     the clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and 
     to each member of the Louisiana delegation to the United 
     States Congress.
                                  ____

       POM-67. A House Joint Memorial adopted by the Legislature 
     of the State of Idaho relative to funding for the Idaho 
     National Laboratory; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources.

                         House Joint Memorial 6

       Whereas at the direction of the United States Government, 
     through its Department of Energy, a new national laboratory 
     ``Idaho National Laboratory'' was, on February 1, 2005, 
     formed from the former Argonne National Laboratory-West and 
     Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory; and
       Whereas the United States Department of Energy's stated 
     vision for the new Idaho National Laboratory is to: enhance 
     the Nation's energy security by becoming the preeminent, 
     internationally recognized nuclear energy research, 
     development and demonstration laboratory within ten years; 
     establish itself as a major center for national security 
     technology development and demonstration; be a multiprogram, 
     national laboratory with world-class nuclear capabilities; 
     and foster new academic, industry, government and 
     international collaborations to produce the investment, 
     programs and expertise that assure this vision is realized; 
     and
       Whereas the Idaho National Laboratory is considered an 
     essential partner alongside Idaho state government, Idaho's 
     universities and industry in carrying out the state's Science 
     and Technology Strategic Plan and building on Idaho's key 
     industry strengths in energy and power, imaging, new 
     materials and nanotechnology, and ag/biotechnology; and
       Whereas the state of Idaho has for fifty-six years 
     willingly and dutifully hosted Department of Energy, Energy 
     Research and Development Administration and Atomic Energy 
     Commission operations at the current Idaho National 
     Laboratory site; and
       Whereas both the federal government and the state of Idaho 
     have significant financial interests in seeing operations at 
     the Idaho National Laboratory succeed. Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the members of the First Regular Session of the 
     Fifty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate concurring therein, that we herewith 
     respectfully petition the President and Congress to pledge 
     continued support and provide sufficient long-term funding to 
     assure execution of the federal government's stated, public 
     record vision for the Idaho National Laboratory, allowing 
     this great institution to advance, as it is uniquely able to, 
     our collective interests in strengthened energy, national and 
     economic security for these United States, be it further
       Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives be, and she is hereby authorized and directed 
     to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the 
     United States, the Secretary of Energy of the United States, 
     the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives of Congress, and the congressional delegation 
     representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United 
     States.

[[Page 10949]]

     
                                  ____
       POM-68. A House Joint Memorial adopted by the Legislature 
     of the State of Idaho relative to Power Marketing 
     Administrations (PMAs) rates; to the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources.

                         House Joint Memorial 9

       Whereas Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) market 
     electricity generated primarily by federal hydropower 
     projects in thirty-three states served by the 1,190 consumer-
     owned electric utilities giving preference to public bodies 
     and cooperatives; and
       Whereas Bonneville Power Administration provides a 
     substantial amount of the electric power consumed in Idaho, 
     including the sale of firm and surplus electric power to 
     Idaho's investor-owned utilities and directs wholesale power 
     to 26 rural electric cooperatives and municipalities in Idaho 
     serving over 250,000 Idaho citizens; and
       Whereas the Administration's budget proposes to sell 
     electric power from PMAs at market rates rather than the 
     current practice of selling at cost-based rates; and
       Whereas the Pacific Northwest region has experienced a 
     nearly fifty percent increase in wholesale power rates since 
     the energy crisis of 2001-2002; and
       Whereas the current federal power program of cost-based 
     rates ensures that all federal costs, with interest, from the 
     generation, transmission and sale of federal power are 
     recovered from purchasers through the rates charged; and
       Whereas the proposal contains a projected rate increase of 
     twenty percent each year until it totals a one hundred 
     percent increase, which is an escalation of significant 
     magnitude and will severely harm the region's businesses and 
     industries, as well as all the residents of the region; and
       Whereas the budget proposal constitutes a thinly disguised 
     tax on the millions of Americans who purchase power through 
     utilities supplied by PMAs; and
       Whereas recognizing the true costs of this proposal and 
     assessing the economic impacts it entails, we find that the 
     proposal is not a prudent choice and should be rejected: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the members of the First Regular Session of the 
     Fifty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate concurring therein, That we urge the Congress 
     to reject the Administration proposal to move PMA rates to 
     market rates thereby ensuring the continued responsible 
     management of power generation, transmission and sale; and be 
     it further
       Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives be, and she is hereby authorized and directed 
     to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the 
     Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of 
     Congress, the congressional delegation representing the State 
     of Idaho in the Congress of the United States and to the 
     Secretary of the United States Department of Energy, Samuel 
     W. Bodman.
                                  ____

       POM-69. A House Joint Memorial adopted by the Legislature 
     of the State of Idaho relative to a feasibility study by the 
     U.S. Corps of Engineers relating to the possibilities, 
     benefits, and costs of providing flood control above Bear 
     Lake; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

                         House Joint Memorial 1

       Whereas the ongoing drought in the state of Idaho has had a 
     profound impact throughout the state, including the area of 
     southeastern Idaho known as the Bear River Basin. Although 
     inadequate, during times of high water such as spring runoff, 
     Bear Lake is the major reservoir for containing flood waters 
     of the Bear River within the Bear River Basin. The effects of 
     drought in the Bear River Basin would be significantly 
     reduced in the event alternative storage sites were 
     available; and
       Whereas the Bear River Basin encompasses 7,400 square miles 
     with 2,700 square miles in the state of Idaho. Originating in 
     Utah's Uintah Mountains, the Bear River crosses state 
     boundaries five times, has tributaries in Idaho, Utah and 
     Wyoming, and ultimately discharges into the Great Salt Lake; 
     and
       Whereas the Bear River did not naturally divert into Bear 
     Lake. The Utah Sugar Company and the Telluride Power Company 
     first proposed diversion of the Bear River into Bear Lake for 
     water storage in 1898. That project was taken over by Utah 
     Power and Light Company for the purpose of producing 
     hydropower. The project, which included a diversion dam on 
     the Bear River, a canal, and a pumping station was completed 
     in 1918; and
       Whereas a multistate compact between the states of Idaho, 
     Utah and Wyoming, known as the Bear River Compact, was 
     entered into in 1958 and amended in 1980. The Compact governs 
     the operation of the Bear River and, for management purposes, 
     the Compact divides the river into three segments. The three 
     segments are known as the Upper Division, located in Utah and 
     Wyoming, the Central Division, located in Wyoming and Idaho, 
     and the Lower Division, located in Idaho and Utah. The Bear 
     River Commission, made up of three members from each of the 
     Compact states, a chairman appointed by the President of the 
     United States, and an engineer/manager, manages the day-to-
     day operation of the river; and
       Whereas as a result of two lawsuits against Utah Power and 
     Light Company during the 1970's, which claimed damage to 
     crops due to flooding along the Bear River, the power company 
     is under court order to keep the Bear River within its banks. 
     Based on the court order, in the event the irrigation season 
     ends with Bear Lake above 5,918 feet in elevation, water is 
     released downstream to make room in Bear Lake for the spring 
     runoff; and
       Whereas since the 1970's, millions of acre feet of water 
     have been released to provide capacity for flood control. 
     Releases carry the river as well as the surface water removed 
     from Bear Lake downstream to the Great Salt Lake where the 
     principal beneficiary is the Great Salt Lake ecosystem. The 
     most recent releases were in 1997, 1998 and 1999; and
       Whereas lowering the elevation of Bear Lake in the Lower 
     Division for flood control also impacts water users in the 
     Upper and Central Divisions. Under the Compact, Woodruff 
     Narrows Reservoir located in the Upper Division is not 
     allowed to fill whenever the elevation of Bear Lake is below 
     5,911 feet above sea level, affecting both ground and surface 
     water in that area. In addition, when Woodruff Narrows 
     Reservoir is not full, no water is available for irrigation 
     in a ten mile stretch of river in the Central Division 
     leaving irrigators in that area without water for their 
     crops; and
       Whereas dredging has been necessary to provide water for 
     irrigation due to low lake levels; and
       Whereas studies to date have shown that use of Bear Lake 
     for flood control has resulted in tons of suspended sediment 
     solids to be deposited in the lake during the spring runoff. 
     This is highly detrimental to the ecosystem. Increases in 
     algae blooms on Bear Lake due to nitrates being carried in 
     have been documented; and
       Whereas in the event the water had not been released in the 
     interest of flood control, it is likely that Bear Lake would 
     now be full or nearly full. In that event, it is probable 
     that there would be no need to pump water out of Bear Lake 
     for irrigation because there would be enough capacity to 
     allow the water to flow out by gravity, there would be no 
     need to dredge in Bear Lake in that the elevation of the lake 
     would be high enough to make dredging unnecessary, and an 
     elevation above 5,911 feet would allow upstream storage at 
     the Woodruff Narrows Reservoir; and
       Whereas extremely low levels in Bear Lake could cause a 
     water emergency to be declared by the state of Utah. The 
     declaration would lead to closer scrutiny of the natural flow 
     rights administered under the interstate accounting system. 
     The lack of adequate storage water to supplement natural flow 
     could result in the curtailment of rights in Idaho; and
       Whereas if alternate storage sites were available, several 
     hundred thousand acre feet of water would still be in Bear 
     Lake to mitigate the effects of the drought. Pursuant to the 
     Bear River Compact, Idaho is entitled to store approximately 
     125,000 acre feet of water annually and Utah about 390,000 
     acre feet annually. Provided adequate storage, this water, 
     which is usually available during the spring runoff, could be 
     stored to prevent any flooding of the Bear River. The water 
     could then be used for irrigation, domestic and commercial 
     development and recreation. A reservoir above Bear Lake would 
     allow chemicals to be neutralized and suspended solids to 
     settle out that are now entering Bear Lake. Alternative 
     storage sites would provide for the conservation, 
     preservation and best utilization of the water to which the 
     state is entitled. This storage is desperately needed to 
     allow residential, commercial and municipal development in 
     the Bear River drainage without reducing irrigated 
     agricultural lands; and
       Whereas flood control above Bear Lake would make possible a 
     policy that Bear Lake would be the first to fill and the last 
     to empty. This would provide more water for irrigation, 
     minimize fluctuations of lake levels, improve spawning 
     habitat for Bear Lake cutthroat trout, provide boat-launching 
     capability at Idaho state parks, and allow the filling of 
     Woodruff Narrows Reservoir. Flood control above Bear Lake 
     would greatly benefit the economy of all three states in the 
     Bear River drainage; and
       Whereas the United States Army Corps of Engineers is the 
     federal agency responsible for flood control. The Corps has 
     indicated a willingness to conduct a feasibility study of 
     possible water storage sites upstream from Bear Lake which 
     could be used for flood control of the Bear River. Costs of 
     the study could range from $600,000 to $2,000,000 depending 
     on the areas the study would include. The study will require 
     an equal match of federal and nonfederal funds. However, with 
     congressional approval, past local expenditures may be used 
     as the local match; and
       Whereas past local expenditures that have been made include 
     $174,000 by the state of Wyoming for the Cokeville Reservoir 
     project on Smith's Fork, $350,000 by the State of Wyoming for 
     the Bear River Plan and over $2,000,000 of state funds from 
     Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah through the Bear River Commission 
     for stream gaging; and
       Whereas concerned citizens of the Bear River drainage, 
     including the Bear Lake

[[Page 10950]]

     County Commission, the Bear Lake Regional Commission, Bear 
     Lake Watch, Inc., and Love Bear Lake, Inc., are asking for 
     Congressional approval to recognize past expenditures as the 
     local match to make the Corps of Engineers feasibility study 
     possible: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the members of the first Regular Session of the 
     Fifty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate concurring therein, That we respectfully urge 
     the Congress of the United States and our Idaho delegation, 
     as well as the Utah and Wyoming delegations in Congress, to 
     support, work to pass and vote for legislation that will 
     authorize and fund a feasibility study by the United States 
     Corps of Engineers relating to the possibilities, benefits 
     and cost of providing flood control above Bear Lake; and be 
     it further
       Resolved, That we urge Congress to allow and approve past 
     local expenditures, equivalent to fifty percent of the total 
     cost of the study, as the required local match and that local 
     expenditures to be allowed and approved include $174,000 by 
     the state of Wyoming for the Cokeville Reservoir project on 
     Smith's Fork, $350,000 by the state of Wyoming for the Bear 
     River Plan and $2,000,000 of state funds from Idaho, Wyoming, 
     and Utah for stream gaging; and be it further
       Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives be, and she is hereby authorized and directed 
     to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the 
     Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of 
     Congress, and the congressional delegations representing the 
     states of Idaho, Utah and Wyoming in the Congress of the 
     United States.
                                  ____

       POM-70. A House Joint Memorial adopted by the Legislature 
     of the State of Idaho relative to the Central America Free 
     Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the 
     Americas (FTAA); to the Committee on Finance.
       Whereas the state of Idaho is very diversified in its 
     agricultural production; and
       Whereas in January 2002, the federal government announced 
     that it was initiating negotiations on a free trade agreement 
     involving the countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras 
     and Nicaragua. These negotiations concluded in December 2003. 
     Negotiations with Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic were 
     subsequently completed and are now included in the agreement. 
     Congress must now decide whether to ratify the Central 
     America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA); and
       Whereas the federal government is also negotiating the Free 
     Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement; and
       Whereas both CAFTA and the FTAA would allow these foreign 
     countries to export commodities to the United States, harming 
     Idaho agricultural industry in the process; and
       Whereas the agricultural producers of the United States 
     cannot be expected to compete with these foreign countries 
     under the trade agreements due to the labor practices, lack 
     of environmental regulations and subsidized agricultural 
     production of these foreign countries; and
       Whereas sugar is an import-sensitive commodity which will 
     be negatively impacted by CAFTA. Idaho is our nation's 
     second-largest producer of sugarbeets and a recent University 
     of Idaho study concludes that the demise of the sugar 
     industry in the state would also have a serious impact on 
     market prices relating to other Idaho crops such as potatoes 
     and onions which would be grown in place of sugarbeets; and
       Whereas the CAFTA nations already enjoy preferential, duty-
     free access into the United States market for 311,700 metric 
     tons of sugar. The United States is presently the world's 
     fourth-largest net importer of sugar under existing trade 
     agreements and its sugar market is already oversupplied, 
     resulting in our region's sugarbeet processing company 
     recently announcing the temporary closure of one of its 
     factories due to the existing low sugar marketing allocations 
     for United States producers; and
       Whereas the United States International Trade Commission in 
     August 2004, concluded that the Central American Free Trade 
     Agreement would actually increase the U.S. trade deficit with 
     the region by $100 million a year to $24 billion a year; and
       Whereas concerns over free trade agreements face the 
     agriculture industry at a time when the domestic consumption 
     of United States agricultural products is declining, forcing 
     domestic producers out of business; and
       Whereas the state of Idaho stands to lose thousands of jobs 
     and millions of dollars if these free trade agreements are 
     implemented, potentially devastating the state's agricultural 
     industry, moving production into other supply-sensitive 
     crops, and severely harming the state's economy as a whole; 
     and
       Whereas the economic impact of any trade agreement must be 
     recognized and considered to maintain viable economic health 
     of agricultural industries, as well as all industries, with 
     an emphasis on fair trade, rather than free trade; and
       Whereas the provisions of CAFTA and FTAA should be 
     renegotiated to limit exports from foreign countries to a 
     needs-based access, allowing the United States agricultural 
     policy to properly function and fairly treat agricultural 
     producers in the United States: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the members of the First Regular Session of the 
     Fifty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate concurring therein, That in negotiating any 
     national trade agreements, the federal government is urged to 
     recognize the economic impact of such trade agreements on the 
     states and consider those impacts in order to maintain the 
     viable economic health of agricultural industries, as well as 
     all industries, with an emphasis on fair trade, rather than 
     free trade, and be it further
       Resolved, That the federal government is urged to 
     renegotiate the provisions of CAFTA and the FTAA to limit 
     exports from the involved foreign countries to fairly protect 
     agricultural producers in the United States; and be it 
     further
       Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives be, and she is hereby authorized and directed 
     to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the 
     Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of 
     Congress, and the congressional delegation representing the 
     State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States.
                                  ____

       POM-71. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the 
     Legislature of the State of Louisiana relative to the Breast 
     Cancer Patient Protection Act; to the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions.

                          Senate Resolution 10

       Whereas individuals and organizations, including many 
     congressmen, have been fighting for access to quality health 
     care for a women since 1996; and
       Whereas the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act is bi-
     partisan legislation co-sponsored by Senator Mary Landrieu of 
     Louisiana which would create a ban on ``drive through'' 
     mastectomies, in which a woman is forced out of the hospital 
     sometimes only hours after breast cancer surgery; and
       Whereas this legislation would require insurance companies 
     to cover a 48-hour hospital stay for a woman undergoing a 
     mastectomy and a 24-hour hospital stay for a woman undergoing 
     a lymph node dissection; and
       Whereas this legislation ensures that a physician and the 
     patient will make a decision together regarding staying at a 
     hospital following a mastectomy; and
       Whereas both the American College of Surgeons and the 
     American Medical Association have taken the position that 
     most patients require a longer hospital stay than those that 
     ``drive-by'' mastectomies afford; and
       Whereas among the groups supporting this legislation are 
     the American Medical Association, the American College of 
     Surgeons, the Association of Women's Health, the Society for 
     Advancement of Women's Health, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, 
     and Families USA: Therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana memorializes 
     the Congress of the United States to enact the Breast Cancer 
     Patient Protection Act; and be it further
       Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution shall be 
     transmitted to the secretary of the United States Senate and 
     the clerk of the United States House of Representatives and 
     to each member of the Louisiana delegation to the United 
     States Congress.
                                  ____

       POM-72. A resolution adopted by the House of 
     Representatives of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth 
     of Pennsylvania relative to ``Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis 
     Awareness Month'', to the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions.

                          House Resolution 225

       Whereas Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is better known 
     as Lou Gehrig's disease; and
       Whereas ALS is a fatal neurodegenerative disease 
     characterized by degeneration of cell bodies of the lower 
     motor neurons in the gray matter of the anterior horns of the 
     spinal cord; and
       Whereas the initial symptom of ALS is weakness of the 
     skeletal muscles, especially those of the extremities; and
       Whereas as ALS progresses, the patient experiences 
     difficulty in swallowing, talking and breathing; and
       Whereas ALS eventually causes muscles to atrophy, and the 
     patient becomes a functional quadriplegic; and
       Whereas ALS does not affect a patient's mental capacity, so 
     a patient remains alert and aware of the loss of motor 
     functions and the inevitable outcome of continued 
     deterioration and death; and
       Whereas ALS occurs in adulthood, most commonly between 40 
     and 70 years of age, with the peak at about 55 years of age, 
     and affects men two to three times more often than women; and
       Whereas more than 5,000 new ALS patients are diagnosed 
     annually; and
       Whereas on average, patients diagnosed with ALS survive two 
     to five years from the time of diagnosis; and
       Whereas ALS has no known cause, prevention or cure; and
       Whereas ``Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Awareness 
     Month'' will increase public awareness of ALS patients' 
     circumstances, acknowledge the terrible impact this disease 
     has on patients and families

[[Page 10951]]

     and recognize the research for treatment and cure of ALS: 
     Therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the 
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recognize the month of May 2005 
     as ``Amyotrophic Lateral Scerosis (ALS) Awareness Month'' in 
     Pennsylvania; and be if further
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives urge the 
     President and Congress of the United States to enact 
     legislation to provide additional funding for ALS research, 
     and be it further,
       Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to 
     the President of the United States, to the Vice President of 
     the United States, to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, to the members of Congress from Pennsylvania 
     and to the United States Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services.
                                  ____

       POM-73. A concurrent resolution adopted by the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate of the Legislature of the 
     State of Hawaii relative to the No Child Left Behind Act of 
     2001; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions.

                      House Concurrent Resolution

       Whereas in 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was 
     enacted on a bipartisan basis and signed into law by 
     President George W. Bush; and
       Whereas all states that accept federal Title I education 
     funds, including Hawaii, are subject to the requirements of 
     the Act; and
       Whereas the purpose of the Act is to compel all public 
     schools to make adequate yearly progress toward the goal of 
     100 percent student proficiency in math and reading by 2013-
     2014; and
       Whereas these expectations are unreasonable for students 
     with limited English proficiency and students with 
     disabilities, making it impossible for many of Hawaii's 
     schools, that have a high population of these students, to 
     comply with the law; and
       Whereas the Act does not allow states that may already have 
     successful accountability systems in place to use their 
     system to comply with the spirit of the Act; and
       Whereas states should be allowed to use a value-added or 
     student growth approach in their state accountability plan; 
     and
       Whereas the Act is an under-funded mandate that causes 
     states and school districts to spend more money than the 
     amounts appropriated by Congress to implement the Act; and
       Whereas the Act coerces participation by placing punitive 
     financial consequences on states that refuse to participate; 
     and
       Whereas in 2004, the National Conference of State 
     Legislatures created a bipartisan task force to study the 
     Act, resulting in suggestions for specific changes to make 
     the Act more workable, more responsive to variations among 
     the states, and more effective in improving elementary 
     education; and
       Whereas the recommendations of the task force's February 
     2005 Final Report include the following:
       (1) Substantially increasing federal funding for the Act;
       (2) Reexamining the financial consequences for states that 
     choose not to participate;
       (3) Reevaluating the 100 percent proficiency goal 
     established by the Act;
       (4) Conducting a Government Accountability Office study of 
     the compliance and proficiency costs associated with the Act;
       (5) Giving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     primacy over the Act in cases where these laws may conflict; 
     and
       (6) Providing states with much greater flexibility to meet 
     the objectives of the adequate yearly progress provisions of 
     the Act; and
       Whereas although the Act aims to provide flexibility for 
     states to improve academic achievement and to close the 
     achievement gap, the task force found that little flexibility 
     has been granted to states to implement the Act: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-
     third Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 
     2005, the Senate concurring, That the United States Congress 
     is respectfully requested to amend the No Child Left Behind 
     Act of 2001 according to the recommendations of the February 
     2005 Final Report of the National Conference of State 
     Legislatures' Task Force on No Child Left Behind; and be it 
     further
       Resolved, That the current law and any revisions thereof 
     recognize that under our federal system of government, 
     education is primarily a state and local responsibility; and 
     be it further
       Resolved, That Congress is requested to allow states more 
     flexibility to continue to work toward the goal of closing 
     the achievement gap without the threat of losing federal 
     funds; and be it further
       Resolved, That Congress is requested to appropriate federal 
     funding in amounts consistent with the levels authorized in 
     the Act for education programs and expanded information 
     systems needed to accurately reflect student, school, and 
     school district performance and to pay the costs of ensuring 
     student proficiency; and be it further
       Resolved, That Congress is requested to authorize 
     appropriate assessment methods and an alternative methodology 
     for determining adequate yearly progress targets and progress 
     for students who are not yet proficient in English and who 
     have certain disabilities; and be it further
       Resolved, That Congress is requested to amend the No Child 
     Left Behind Act's current provisions relating to adequate 
     yearly progress to apply sanctions only when the same groups 
     or subgroups within a grade level fail to meet adequate 
     yearly progress targets in the same subject area for two 
     consecutive years; and be it further
       Resolved, That Congress is requested to amend the Act to 
     allow flexibility in:
       (1) Determining adequate yearly progress using models that 
     measure individual student growth or growth in the same 
     cohort of students from year to year;
       (2) Calculating adequate yearly progress for students 
     belonging to multiple groups and subgroups; and
       (3) Determining whether certain categories of teachers, 
     such as special education teachers, are highly qualified; and 
     be it further
       Resolved, That Congress is requested to modify the No Child 
     Left Behind Act's provisions relating to school choice by 
     limiting the option only to those students whose performance 
     is consistently below the proficiency level; and be it 
     further
       Resolved, That certified copies of this Concurrent 
     Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United 
     States, the President and Secretary of the United States 
     Senate, the Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of 
     Representatives, and members of Hawaii's congressional 
     delegation.
                                  ____

       POM-74. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature 
     of the State of North Dakota relative to a human life 
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.

                    House Concurrent Resolution 3017

       Whereas the Legislative Assembly finds that the state of 
     North Dakota has compelling and paramount interest in the 
     preservation and protection of the life of all human beings; 
     and
       Whereas the Legislative Assembly finds that the life of a 
     human being should be protected at every stage of biological 
     development; and
       Whereas the Legislative Assembly finds that abortion 
     procedures impose significant risks to the health and life of 
     a pregnant mother, including subjecting her to significant 
     risk of severe depression, suicidal ideation, suicide, 
     attempted suicide, posttrau-
     matic stress disorders, physical injury, and a greater risk 
     of death than risks associated with carrying the unborn child 
     to full term and childbirth; and
       Whereas the inalienable right to life is found not only in 
     the Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution 
     of the United States which the senators and representatives 
     of Congress, the members of the several state legislatures, 
     and all federal and state executive and judicial officers are 
     sworn to preserve, protect, and defend; and
       Whereas the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of 
     the United States guarantee that no person may be deprived of 
     life without due process of law; and
       Whereas Congress has the power and responsibility to 
     enforce the guarantees contained in the 5th, 13th, and 14th 
     Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of 
     America, which guarantee to all persons the right not to be 
     deprived of life without due process of law, the right to the 
     equal protection of the law, and the right to be free from 
     involuntary servitude and the power to enforce such 
     guarantees include the power to expand the definition of 
     persons entitled to such guarantees; and
       Whereas abortion is a deprivation of the right to life and 
     the right to the equal protection of the law and is the 
     ultimate manifestation of the involuntary servitude of one 
     human being to another: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, by the House of Representatives of North Dakota, 
     the Senate concurring therein, That the Fifty-ninth 
     Legislative Assembly strongly urges the Congress of the 
     United States to pass and all state executive and judicial 
     officers to support an amendment to the Constitution of the 
     United States recognizing that the inalienable right to life 
     is vested in each human being and guaranteeing that no human 
     being may be deprived the equal protection of the law without 
     due process; and be it further
       Resolved, That the Secretary of State forward copies of 
     this resolution to each member of the North Dakota 
     Congressional Delegation, the Speaker of the United States 
     House of Representatives, the President of the United States 
     Senate, the Governor of North Dakota, and the Chief Justice 
     of the North Dakota Supreme Court.
                                  ____

       POM-75. A resolution adopted by the House of 
     Representatives of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth 
     of Pennsylvania relative to the Republic of Poland and the 
     United States Department of State's Visa Waiver Program; to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary.
       Whereas the Republic of Poland is a free, democratic and 
     independent nation; and
       Whereas in 1999 the United States and the Republic of 
     Poland became formal allies when Poland was granted 
     membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; and

[[Page 10952]]

       Whereas the Republic of Poland has proven to be an 
     indispensable ally in the global campaign against terrorism; 
     and
       Whereas the Republic of Poland has actively participated in 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Iraqi reconstruction, 
     shedding blood along with American soldiers; and
       Whereas the President of the United States and other high-
     ranking officials have described the Republic of Poland as 
     ``one of our closest friends''; and
       Whereas on April 15, 1991, the Republic of Poland 
     unilaterally repealed the visa obligation to United States 
     citizens traveling to Poland; and
       Whereas the United States Department of State's Visa Waiver 
     Program currently allows approximately 23 million citizens 
     from 27 countries to travel to the United States for tourism 
     or business for up to 90 days without having to obtain visas 
     for entry; and
       Whereas the countries that currently participate in the 
     Visa Waiver Program include Andorra, Australia, Austria, 
     Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, 
     Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the 
     Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, 
     Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the 
     United Kingdom; and
       Whereas it is appropriate that the Republic of Poland be 
     made eligible for the United States Department of State's 
     Visa Waiver Program: Therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the 
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania respectfully urge the President 
     and Congress of the United States to make the Republic of 
     Poland eligible for the United States Department of State's 
     Visa Waiver Program; and be it further
       Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to 
     the President of the United States, to the presiding officers 
     of each house of Congress, to the member of Congress from 
     Pennsylvania and to Przemyslaw Grudzinski, Ambassador of the 
     Republic of Poland to the United States.
                                  ____

       POM-76. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of 
     the State of Idaho relative to the Radiation Exposure 
     Compensation Act (RECA); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       Whereas on October 15, 1990, Congress passed the Radiation 
     Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which provides for 
     compassionate payments to persons or to their beneficiaries 
     who developed diseases as a result of exposure to radiation 
     from U.S. atmospheric nuclear weapons testing; and
       Whereas currently, a study is underway by the National 
     Academy of Sciences and a report will be filed with Congress 
     to address the adequacy of the initial geographic coverage 
     provided in RECA; and
       Whereas compelling anecdotal evidence has been accumulated 
     at public meetings and in written reports, to indicate the 
     impact of atmospheric testing on the downwinder populations 
     in Idaho; and
       Whereas preliminary evidence suggests that scientific 
     documentation being gathered and assessed for inclusion in 
     the report will find that risk factors present in Idaho equal 
     or exceed the factors present in areas previously included in 
     RECA coverage; and
       Whereas members of Idaho's congressional delegation have 
     worked and will continue to press for responsible legislative 
     action to address the claims of Idahoans based upon radiation 
     exposure; and
       Whereas it is appropriate that members of the Idaho 
     Legislature, speaking on behalf of the citizens of the state, 
     express support for the efforts of Idaho's congressional 
     delegation in their representation of downwinders in Idaho: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the members of the First Regular Session of the 
     Fifty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate concurring therein, That we anticipate the 
     findings of the National Academy of Sciences will verify the 
     impact of testing on residents of Idaho, and we conclude that 
     it is appropriate to compensate these downwinders in the same 
     manner and to the same extent as those individuals previously 
     compensated for similar exposures. We urge the members of 
     Idaho's congressional delegation to continue in their 
     endeavors on behalf of Idaho's citizens; and be it further
       Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives be, and she is hereby authorized and directed 
     to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the 
     Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of 
     Congress, and the congressional delegation representing the 
     State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States.
                                  ____

       POM-77. A resolution adopted by the Board of the Town of 
     Brookhaven of the State of New York relative to the 
     opposition of the elimination of the Community Development 
     Block Grant Program (CDBG); to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs.
                                  ____

       POM-78. A resolution adopted by the Mayor and City Council 
     of Atlanta, Georgia relative to proposed cuts in Community 
     Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG); to the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
                                  ____

       POM-79. A resolution adopted by the City of Pembroke Pines, 
     Florida relative to the Community Development Block Grant 
     Program (CDBG); to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs.
                                  ____

       POM-80. A resolution adopted by the California State Lands 
     Commission relative to the lifting of the Federal Moratorium 
     on Oil and Gas Leasing off the California Coast; to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works.
                                  ____

       POM-81. A resolution adopted by Hudson County (New Jersey) 
     Board of Chosen Freeholders relative to the Passaic River 
     Restoration Initiative; to the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works.
                                  ____

       POM-82. A resolution adopted by the Mayor and Council of 
     the Town of Harrison, Hudson County, New Jersey, relative to 
     the Passaic River Restoration Initiative; to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works.
                                  ____

       POM-83. A resolution adopted by the Macomb County Board of 
     Commissioners of the State of Michigan relative to the Social 
     Security program; to the Committee on Finance.
                                  ____

       POM-84. A resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of 
     the New Jersey Association of Counties relative to Perkins 
     Funding; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions.
                                  ____

       POM-85. A resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of 
     the New Jersey Association of Counties relative to the 
     Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG); to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
                                  ____

       POM-86. A resolution adopted by the Borough of Maywood, 
     State of New Jersey relative to cloture rules adopted by the 
     United States Senate; to the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration.

                          ____________________




                         REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

  The following reports of committees were submitted:

       By Ms. COLLINS, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs, with an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute:
       S. 21. A bill to provide for homeland security grant 
     coordination and simplification, and for other purposes 
     (Rept. No. 109-71).

                          ____________________




              INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the 
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

           By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Harkin, 
             and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
       S. 1108. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security 
     Act to make improvements to payments to ambulance providers 
     in rural areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Finance.
           By Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
             Schumer, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Leahy):
       S. 1109. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security 
     Act to provide payments to Medicare ambulance suppliers of 
     the full cost of furnishing such services, to provide 
     payments to rural ambulance providers and suppliers to 
     account for the cost of serving areas with low population 
     density, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. 
             Santorum):
       S. 1110. A bill to amend the Federal Hazardous Substances 
     Act to require engine coolant and antifreeze to contain a 
     bittering agent in order to render the coolant or antifreeze 
     unpalatable; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
           By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. 
             Allard):
       S. 1111. A bill to promote oil shale and tar sand 
     development, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Finance.
           By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Smith, 
             Mr. Wyden, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
             Schumer, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Rockefeller, 
             Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Talent, 
             and Mr. Hagel):
       S. 1112. A bill to make permanent the enhanced educational 
     savings provisions for qualified tuition programs enacted as 
     part of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 
     of 2001; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Santorum, 
             and Mr. Ensign):
       S. 1113. A bill to provide that no Federal funds may be 
     expended for the payment or reimbursement of a drug that is 
     prescribed for the treatment of sexual or erectile 
     dysfunction; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
       S. 1114. A bill to establish minimum drug testing standards 
     for major professional

[[Page 10953]]

     sports leagues; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
           By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Johnson):
       S. 1115. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to allow Indian tribes to receive charitable contributions of 
     inventory; to the Committee on Finance.

                          ____________________




                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 300

  At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Colorado 
(Mr. Salazar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 300, a bill to extend the 
temporary increase in payments under the medicare program for home 
health services furnished in a rural area.


                                 S. 333

  At the request of Mr. Santorum, the names of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Talent) were 
added as cosponsors of S. 333, a bill to hold the current regime in 
Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a 
transition to democracy in Iran.


                                 S. 438

  At the request of Mr. Ensign, the names of the Senator from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Chafee) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) were 
added as cosponsors of S. 438, a bill to amend title XVIII of the 
Social Security Act to repeal the medicare outpatient rehabilitation 
therapy caps.


                                 S. 440

  At the request of Mr. Bunning, the name of the Senator from North 
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 440, a bill to amend 
title XIX of the Social Security Act to include podiatrists as 
physicians for purposes of covering physicians services under the 
medicaid program.


                                 S. 451

  At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from New Jersey 
(Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 451, a bill to amend 
the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all dogs and cats used by 
research facilities are obtained legally.


                                 S. 467

  At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from North Dakota 
(Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 467, a bill to extend the 
applicability of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002.


                                 S. 470

  At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Chafee) was added as a cosponsor of S. 470, a bill to amend the 
Public Health Service Act to expand the clinical trials drug data bank.


                                 S. 526

  At the request of Mr. Reed, the name of the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 526, a bill to amend the 
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to provide incentive 
grants to improve the quality of child care.


                                 S. 603

  At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the name of the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Martinez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 603, a bill to amend the 
Consumer Credit Protection Act to assure meaningful disclosures of the 
terms of rental-purchase agreements, including disclosures of all costs 
to consumers under such agreements, to provide certain substantive 
rights to consumers under such agreements, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 627

  At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rockefeller) were added as cosponsors of S. 627, a bill to amend 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the research 
credit, to increase the rates of the alternative incremental credit, 
and to provide an alternative simplified credit for qualified research 
expenses.


                                 S. 633

  At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Missouri 
(Mr. Talent) was added as a cosponsor of S. 633, a bill to require the 
Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of veterans 
who became disabled for life while serving in the Armed Forces of the 
United States.


                                 S. 685

  At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor of S. 685, a bill to amend title 
IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require 
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, in the case of airline pilots 
who are required by regulation to retire at age 60, to compute the 
actuarial value of monthly benefits in the form of a life annuity 
commencing at age 60.


                                 S. 713

  At the request of Mr. Roberts, the name of the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 713, a bill to 
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for collegiate 
housing and infrastructure grants.


                                 S. 811

  At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from New Jersey 
(Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 811, a bill to require 
the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 
bicentennial of the birth of Abraham Lincoln.


                                 S. 836

  At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from 
California (Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 836, a bill 
to require accurate fuel economy testing procedures.


                                 S. 843

  At the request of Mr. Santorum, the names of the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) and the Senator from Maine (Ms. Collins) were 
added as cosponsors of S. 843, a bill to amend the Public Health 
Service Act to combat autism through research, screening, intervention 
and education.


                                 S. 914

  At the request of Mr. Allard, the name of the Senator from Kansas 
(Mr. Brownback) was added as a cosponsor of S. 914, a bill to amend the 
Public Health Service Act to establish a competitive grant program to 
build capacity in veterinary medical education and expand the workforce 
of veterinarians engaged in public health practice and biomedical 
research.


                                S. 1022

  At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from Indiana 
(Mr. Bayh) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1022, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow for an energy efficient 
appliance credit.


                                S. 1055

  At the request of Mr. Dodd, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 
1055, a bill to improve elementary and secondary education.


                                S. 1063

  At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from 
Maine (Ms. Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1063, a bill to 
promote and enhance public safety and to encourage the rapid deployment 
of IP-enabled voice services.


                                S. 1064

  At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from North 
Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1064, a bill to 
amend the Public Health Service Act to improve stroke prevention, 
diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation.


                                S. 1067

  At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from North 
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1067, a bill to 
require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to undertake 
activities to ensure the provision of services under the PACE program 
to frail elders living in rural areas, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1075

  At the request of Mr. Thune, the names of the Senator from Montana 
(Mr. Burns) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) were added as 
cosponsors of S. 1075, a bill to postpone the 2005 round of defense 
base closure and realignment.


                                S. 1076

  At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from Arkansas 
(Mr. Pryor) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1076, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the excise tax and income tax 
credits for the production of biodiesel.

[[Page 10954]]




                                S. 1103

  At the request of Mr. Baucus, the names of the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) 
and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Talent) were added as cosponsors of 
S. 1103, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the individual alternative minimum tax.


                                S. 1105

  At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1105, a bill to amend 
title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding international 
and foreign language studies.


                                S. 1107

  At the request of Mr. Enzi, the names of the Senator from Tennessee 
(Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) were added 
as cosponsors of S. 1107, a bill to reauthorize the Head Start Act, and 
for other purposes.


                              S.J. RES. 14

  At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 14, a joint 
resolution providing for the recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided 
capital of Israel before the United States recognizes a Palestinian 
state, and for other purposes.

                          ____________________




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. 
        Nelson of Nebraska):
  S. 1108. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
make improvements to payments to ambulance providers in rural areas, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rural Access to 
Emergency Services (RAES) Act, which will improve access to emergency 
medical services (EMS) in rural communities. This bill will take the 
critical steps to help sustain rural emergency care in the future.
  EMS is a vital component of the health care system, particularly in 
rural areas. Ambulance personnel are not only the first responders to 
an emergency, but also play a key role in the provision of life-saving 
medical care. It is said that time is one of the most important factors 
relating to patient outcomes in emergency situations. Rural EMS 
providers often have the enormous strain of responding to emergencies 
many miles away--sometimes nearly 50 minutes. However, current 
reimbursement levels are insufficient for the squads to bear the costs 
of responding to calls over these long distances. As rural EMS squads 
are forced to close, rural residents--and others traveling through 
rural areas--are left without access to emergency services. Due to the 
inadequacy of Medicare reimbursement, rural ambulance providers are 
also finding it difficult to maintain the heightened ``readiness 
requirement,'' exposing communities to the threat of being ill-prepared 
to respond to a major public health emergency.
  My legislation will take steps to improve the EMS system by 
eliminating the 35-mile rule for ambulance services that provide care 
in communities served by Critical Access Hospitals. In addition, it 
will establish an ambulance-specific definition of ``urban'' and 
``rural'' for Medicare reimbursement. Moreover, my legislation will 
provide $15 million in funds to be used for a variety of activities 
aimed at improving the rural EMS system. Finally, it will expand the 
Universal Service Fund's definition of ``health care provider'' to 
include ``ambulance services.''
  It is important to assure that rural Americans receive the best 
emergency medical services possible. This is especially important to me 
because 54 percent of North Dakotans live in rural communities, served 
largely by unpaid volunteer emergency personnel. In fact, only 10 
percent receive compensation for their services. In recent years, rural 
ambulance services have found it difficult to recruit and retain EMS 
personnel. Congress must take steps to ensure that every American has 
access to quality emergency care. The RAES Act would do just that by 
improving reimbursement, increasing collaboration among healthcare 
entities, and allowing EMS providers to collect quality data.
  The EMS bill will provide improved healthcare and better access to 
EMS for the 49 million Americans living in rural areas, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this essential legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Allard):
  S. 1111. A bill to promote oil shale and tar sand development, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Shale and 
Tar Sands Development Act of 2005. In doing so, I would like to thank 
Senator Robert Bennett and Senator Wayne Allard for cosponsoring this 
legislation.
  It could not be any more apparent to Americans when we pay to fill up 
our cars that this country is in need of a strong, comprehensive energy 
strategy. Our citizens recognize that there is a shortage of petroleum, 
and that that shortage is driving up prices.
  American consumers have increased their demand for oil by 12 percent 
in the last decade, but oil production has grown by less than one half 
of one percent. Is it any wonder we rely on foreign countries for more 
than half our oil needs? We import 56 percent of our oil today, and 
it's projected to be 68 percent within 20 years.
  On a larger scale, global demand for oil is growing at an 
unprecedented pace--about two and half million barrels per day in 2004 
alone. However, while global oil production is increasing, the 
discovery of new oil reserves is falling dramatically. Moreover, trends 
indicate that the global thirst for petroleum will continue to grow, 
especially in Asia.
  Last month, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated, ``Markets 
for oil and natural gas have been subject to a degree of strain over 
the past year not experienced for a generation. Increased demand and 
lagging additions to productive capacity have combined to absorb a 
significant amount of the slack in energy markets that was essential in 
containing energy prices between 1985 and 2000.''
  We are quickly heading into a global energy crunch, and our lack of 
sufficient oil supply at home will give us little or no buffer against 
it. Increasing our domestic oil reserve is imperative both from an 
economic and a national security perspective.
  I am pleased to report to my colleagues today that a solution is 
available.
  It is a little known fact that the largest hydrocarbon resource in 
the world rests within the borders of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. I 
know it may be hard to believe, but energy experts agree that there is 
more recoverable oil in these three States than there is in all the 
Middle East. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 
recoverable oil shale in the western United States exceeds one trillion 
barrels and is the richest and most geographically concentrated oil 
shale and tar sands resource in the world.
  This gigantic resource of oil shale and tar sands is well known by 
geologists and energy experts, but it has not been counted among our 
Nation's oil reserve because it is not yet being developed 
commercially. Companies have been waiting for the Federal Government to 
recognize publicly the existence of this resource as a potential 
reserve and to allow industry access to it.
  This bill would give them that chance.
  Some might ask why we have not yet developed these resources if doing 
so could have such a profound economic potential?
  I understand why we have been so hesitant to develop this resource in 
the past. During the 1970s, we saw a very large and expensive effort 
begin in western Colorado to develop oil shale there. When the price of 
oil dropped dramatically, though, the market for oil shale went bust 
and the region suffered an economic disaster.

[[Page 10955]]

  We should never forget that experience.
  Much has changed since the 1970s, and it would be senseless to 
continue to ignore the huge potential of this resource. I think there 
has been a mind set within the government and the local communities 
resulting from the Colorado boom and bust experience that developing 
this resource would be risky. The fact is, developing this energy 
resource is no more risky than producing oil offshore or in the Arctic. 
It is certainly less risky than continuing to rely on oil from the 
Middle East or from other foreign competitors.
  We need to remember that our past failure in this area was not 
necessarily a failure of technology, but rather an inability to sustain 
this technology economically because of a very large slump in gas 
prices. Today's economics and advances in technology combine to provide 
the right scenario to begin the development of the world's largest 
untapped oil resource.
  Skeptics might ask how we know that the price of oil won't plummet, 
causing the problems of the 1970s all over again? The world is now 
reaching peak oil production of conventional oil. With the tremendous 
growth in India and Asia, and the accompanying need for oil, experts 
predict there will be little economic incentive for prices to drop. 
This is a new scenario for the world, and it forces us to shift our 
focus to unconventional resources.
  We have already seen this shift in focus by the government of 
Alberta, Canada. Alberta recognized the potential of its own tar sands 
deposits and set forth a policy to promote their development. As a 
result, Canada has increased its oil reserves by more than a factor of 
10, going from a reserve of about 14 billion barrels to its current 
reserve of 176 billion barrels in only a few years. And just think we 
are sitting on one trillion barrels, more than five times what Canada 
has.
  I think it's outrageous that Utah imports about one-fourth of its oil 
from Canadian tar sands, even though we have a very large resource of 
those very same tar sands in our own State sitting undeveloped. The 
government of Alberta, which owns the resource, has moved forward in 
leaps and bounds, while the United States has yet to take even a baby 
step toward developing our untapped resource.
  Our proposed legislation looks to the Alberta model to help the 
United States move toward greater energy independence. The Oil Shale 
and Tar Sands Development Act represents a necessary shift by our 
government from an almost complete reliance on conventional sources of 
oil to our vast unconventional resources, such as tar sands and oil 
shale.
  In drafting this legislation, we have been mindful of the environment 
and of States' water rights. We live in a different world than when 
these resources were first developed. Unlike 30 years ago, we now have 
the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the 
Mining Reclamation Act. Also, new technologies make the effort much 
cleaner and require less water than in the past. Industry understands 
that any water it needs will have to be acquired according to State law 
and according to existing water rights.
  Let me talk, for a moment, about the specific provisions in our bill. 
S. 1111 would establish an Office of Strategic Fuels tasked with, among 
other things, the development of a five-year plan to determine the 
safest and steadiest route to developing oil shale and tar sands. The 
bill would also establish a mineral leasing program in the Department 
of the Interior to provide access to this resource.
  Recognizing the tremendous national interest in this resource, our 
legislation provides a number of programs to encourage oil shale and 
tar sands development, including Federal royalty relief, Federal cost 
shares for demonstration projects, advanced procurement agreements by 
the military, and tax relief through the expensing of new equipment and 
technologies related to oil shale and tar sands development.
  The size of our nation's energy challenge is enormous, but in Utah, 
Colorado, and Wyoming we have an answer that more than meets the 
challenge. This bill moves us down that path. I urge my colleagues to 
join us in our effort to help the United States open the door new 
frontier for domestic energy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Smith, Mr. Wyden, 
        Mr. McConnell, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lott, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
        Corzine, Mr. Talent, and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 1112. A bill to make permanent the enhanced educational savings 
provisions for qualified tuition programs enacted as part of the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley, and 
our other colleagues, in introducing legislation to make the Section 
529 enhancements enacted in 2001 permanent.
  In 2001, it was the Senate, especially my good friend Chairman 
Grassley, that insisted on including education savings in the tax bill. 
I am proud of that fact. And I am proud that the Senate is again taking 
the lead to make these important provisions permanent.
  Higher education is critical to our children's future and our 
Nation's economy. As a parent, or grandparent, you know that providing 
your children with a college education means they are likely to earn 
substantially more than if they only have a high school degree. One 
study estimated a million dollars more in today's dollars.
  College is a good investment, but a very expensive one. The cost of 
tuition is rising every year. Over the past ten years, expenses at 
public universities have increased nearly 40 percent. The U.S. 
Department of Education says the average cost of a four-year education 
is currently $34,000 and almost $90,000 for private colleges.
  In 1996, Congress created 529 plans to help families plan for this 
expense. Since their inception, 529 plans have helped families' college 
savings grow faster by not taxing investment income while it is 
accumulating in the account. In 2001, we saw a need to do more to help 
families deal with skyrocketing costs, so we allowed tax-free 
distributions from the account, as long as the money goes for its 
intended purpose--post-secondary education expenses. This income 
exclusion will expire after 2010 if we don't do something about it.
  There are a lot of provisions that will expire in 2010--so why focus 
on this one provision today? Because saving for college doesn't happen 
in five or six years. We want families to save today for college 
expenses fifteen to twenty years from now. Without this legislation, we 
are asking families to make critical investment decisions without the 
promise of today's tax benefits. This is not a good way to encourage 
savings. Making this tax benefit permanent will allow families to plan 
and finance their children's education beyond 2010.
  Thousands of young people back home have 529 plan accounts. By the 
end of 2004, Montana families had over $128 million set aside through 
the Montana Family Education Savings Program. Across the country there 
is about $68 billion invested in over 7 million accounts. The average 
account balance is just over $9,000. Not enough to finance a college 
education, but an important start.
  One of the great things about 529 plans is that grandparents can save 
for the future of their grandchildren. That is what Arlene Hannawalt 
did--she saved through a 529 plan for her granddaughter Nicole's 
education. Nicole dropped out of high school, but she is getting her 
GED. Later this year, with help from her 529 account, Nicole will be 
going to the University of Montana--Helena College of Technology to 
study accounting.
  Nicole's father is in the Army National Guard, serving in Iraq. Our 
prayers are with him. I'm sure Nicole's family is very pleased that she 
will soon be a college student.
  Tax-favored treatment for college savings is good policy, but it is 
not

[[Page 10956]]

free. I assure my colleagues that we will be looking for appropriate 
offsets to cover the cost of this bill.
  Education is one of my top priorities. And saving for education 
should be one of a family's top priorities. I encourage my colleagues 
to join in making the tax status of 529 benefits permanent to help 
millions of American families plan for their children's future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. 
        Ensign):
  S. 1113. A bill to provide that no Federal funds may be expended for 
the payment or reimbursement of a drug that is prescribed for the 
treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the past three decades, 
prescription medicines have assumed a central and critical role in 
treating health care conditions. Every year, researchers make new 
discoveries that help patients cope with illnesses and improve their 
quality of life. Ensuring access to prescription drugs--to treatments 
that can help people maintain their health and avoid costly 
hospitalizations, for example--is a fundamental responsibility of our 
Federal health programs. We would not have worked as hard as we did to 
establish the first-ever Medicare prescription drug benefit if we did 
not believe this to be true. At the same time, we have a tremendous 
responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayers' dollars. I, for one, 
take that responsibility very seriously.
  In 2004, our nation spent $1.8 trillion on health care. Medicare 
spending accounted for 17 percent of that amount. In 2005, Medicaid 
spending is expected to reach $321 billion. The Federal government 
offers me and other Federal employees health coverage through the 
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The Department of 
Defense has TRICARE for military personnel, and the Veterans' 
Administration provides an important source of health care access to 
those who proudly served our country. Year after year, the costs of 
these and other Federal health care programs continue to rise. Year 
after year, we are forced to make difficult decisions to find ways to 
save money under these programs with the goal of sustaining them well 
into the future.
  In contrast to those decisions, the bill that I am introducing today 
was not difficult for me at all. By eliminating all Federal payments 
for certain ``lifestyle'' drugs, the legislation restores the 
fundamental concept of stewardship to prescription drug coverage under 
Federal programs. It is a pretty simple piece of legislation--no 
payment for drugs prescribed for sexual or erectile dysfunction under 
any Federal program, period. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
estimated that Medicare and Medicaid alone will spend $2 billion on 
these drugs between 2006 and 2015. In my opinion, those dollars could 
be spent more wisely.
  When we crafted the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, our 
bipartisan agreement sought to strike the most reasonable balance for 
Medicare beneficiaries and hard working taxpayers. We wanted to make 
sure that beneficiaries had access to life-saving and life-improving 
medicines. Now some certainly may argue that these ``lifestyle'' drugs 
can improve your life. I appreciate that view. However, we live in a 
world of limited resources, and in that world of limited resources 
coverage of these ``lifestyle'' drugs under Medicare--or any other 
Federal program, in my opinion--is inconsistent with that goal of 
balance. I am pleased to join with Senators Lott, Santorum, and Ensign 
in working to rectify that situation today and urge my colleagues to 
join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1114. A bill to establish minimum drug testing standards for major 
professional sports leagues; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Stevens in 
introducing the Clean Sports Act of 2005. The chairman of the House 
Government Reform Committee, Congressman Davis, and the ranking member 
of that committee, Congressman Waxman, are introducing a companion bill 
today in the House.
  The purpose of this bill is to protect the integrity of professional 
sports and, more importantly, the health and safety of our Nation's 
youth, who, for better or for worse, see professional athletes as role 
models. The legislation would achieve that goal by establishing minimum 
standards for the testing of steroids and other performance-enhancing 
substances by major professional sports leagues. By adhering to--and 
hopefully exceeding--these minimum standards, the Nation's major 
professional sports leagues would send a strong signal to the public 
that performance-enhancing drugs have no legitimate role in American 
sports.
  This bill would prohibit our country's major professional sports 
leagues--the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the 
National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League--from 
operating if they do not meet the minimum testing requirements set 
forth therein. Those standards would be comprised of five key 
components: the independence of the entity or entities that perform the 
leagues' drug tests; testing for a comprehensive list of doping 
substances and methods; a strong system of unannounced testing; 
significant penalties that discourage the use of performance-enhancing 
drugs; and a fair and effective adjudication process for athletes 
accused of doping. These elements are crucial components of any 
credible performance-enhancing drug testing policy.
  More specifically, the bill would require all major professional 
sports leagues to have an independent third party administer their 
performance-enhancing drug tests. The legislation would further require 
that samples provided by athletes be tested by laboratories approved by 
the United States Anti-Doping Agency--USADA--and for substances banned 
by USADA. In addition, the bill would require not fewer than three 
unannounced tests during a league's season of play, and at least two 
unannounced tests during the off season. Under this legislation, if a 
player were to test positive for a banned performance-enhancing 
substance, that player would be suspended for 2 years for the first 
violation and banned for life for a second violation. Finally, if any 
player were to test positive, the professional sports league would be 
obligated to ensure that the player would have substantial due process 
rights including the opportunity for a hearing and right to counsel.
  To ensure that the major professional sports leagues meet the highest 
standards of performance-enhancing drug testing, the bill would require 
each professional sports league to consult with USADA in developing its 
drug testing standards and procedures, its protocols for tests in the 
off season, and its athlete adjudication program. For 5 years, USADA 
has served as the official antidoping agency for Olympic sports in the 
United States. In that role, USADA has shown a tremendous dedication to 
eliminating doping in sports through research, education, testing, and 
adjudication efforts. The expertise that it has developed over the past 
half-decade would serve this country's professional sports leagues 
well.
  A violation of this legislation would be treated as a violation of 
the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Federal Trade Commission would 
have the ability to either obtain an injunction against the league that 
is in violation of the bill or seek penalties of up to $1 million per 
violation. Any enforcement mechanism that is not as strong as this 
would simply not be effective to ensure that these multi-billion-dollar 
businesses adhere to the minimum standards set forth in the 
legislation.
  Finally, the bill would give the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy--ONDCP--the ability to add other professional sports leagues as 
well as certain college sports if the ONDCP were to determine that such 
additions would prevent the use of performance-enhancing substances by 
high school, college, or professional athletes. The bill would

[[Page 10957]]

also require the United States Boxing Commission, upon its 
establishment, to promulgate steroids testing standards consistent with 
those contained in the bill.
  The need for reforming the drug testing policies of professional 
sports is clear. However, I introduce this legislation reluctantly. 
Over a year ago, I stated publicly that the failure of professional 
sports--and in particular Major League Baseball--to commit to 
addressing the issue of doping straight on and immediately would 
motivate Congress to search for legislative remedies. Despite my clear 
warning and the significant attention that Congress has given to this 
stain on professional sports, baseball, and other professional leagues 
have refused to do the right thing.
  By introducing this bill, I am once again asking the leagues to shore 
up the integrity of professional sports. I am asking the leagues to 
realize that what is at stake here is not the sanctity of collective 
bargaining agreements, but rather the health and safety of America's 
children. Like it or not, our Nation's kids look to professional 
athletes as role models and take cues from their actions, both good and 
bad.
  I remain hopeful that professional sports will reform their drug 
testing policies on their own--a modest proposal in the eyes of 
reasonable people. However, the introduction of this bill demonstrates 
the continued seriousness with which Congress views this issue. It 
should be seen as a renewed incentive for the leagues to clean up their 
sports on their own without Government interference.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 1115. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
Indian tribes to receive charitable contributions of inventory; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will 
help increase the amount of food donations going to American Indians 
and Alaska Natives nationwide. I am pleased to have Mr. Johnson join me 
in introducing this important legislation.
  Despite reports from the Census Bureau that show stable income levels 
for many Americans, the poverty rate for the 4.4 million American 
Indians and Alaska Natives living throughout the United States remains 
nearly three times that of non-Hispanic whites. Not only do Natives 
face greater challenges in securing basic household necessities, but in 
securing food as well.
  According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in late 
2004, nearly 36 million Americans face challenges in getting enough 
food to eat. This includes nearly 13 million children. Of these 
statistics, Natives constitute a disproportionate number due to the 
higher poverty rate among this group.
  And yet, charitable organizations that provide hunger relief are 
unable to meet the basic needs of Natives due to an oversight in the 
Federal tax code. Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code allows 
corporations to take an enhanced tax deduction for donations of food 
inventory; however, the food must be distributed to 501(c)(3) nonprofit 
organizations, such as food banks. Nonprofit organizations cannot then 
transfer such donations to tribes. Although many donations to tribes 
are tax deductible under section 7871 of the Internal Revenue Code, 
tribes are not among the organizations listed under section 501(c)(3) 
of the Internal Revenue Code. To clarify, section 170(e)(3) does not 
allow tribes to be eligible recipients of corporate food donations to 
nonprofit organizations since they are not listed under section 
501(c)(3) as an eligible entity.
  With this legislation, we intend to make a simple correction to the 
tax code that clearly indicates that tribes are eligible recipients of 
food donated under section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This 
correction is long overdue and would remedy an egregious inequity in 
the Federal tax code that affects Natives nationwide.
  Please allow me to provide a few examples of how this legislation 
could foster positive change. In Alaska, approximately half of the food 
donated to the Food Bank of Alaska from corporations could go to tribes 
throughout Alaska. Much of this food would go to villages that are only 
accessible by air or water. In South Dakota, roughly 30 percent of the 
food the Community Food Banks of South Dakota distributes would go to 
reservations. In North Dakota, the amount of food donated to the Great 
Plains Food Bank could double if this legislation were enacted. The 
Montana Food Bank Network projects that food donations could increase 
by 16 percent. A food bank based in Albuquerque, NM estimates that 
their food donations could triple in the first year alone.
  It is imperative that we address this important issue expeditiously. 
The health and well-being of low income American Indians and Alaska 
Natives across the Nation is at stake.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1115

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF INVENTORY TO INDIAN 
                   TRIBES .

       (a) In General.--Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for contributions of 
     inventory and other property) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Special rule for indian tribes.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, an 
     Indian tribe (as defined in section 7871(c)(3)(E)(ii)) shall 
     be treated as an organization eligible to be a donee under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Use of property.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)(i), if the use of the property donated is related to the 
     exercise of an essential governmental function of the Indian 
     tribal government (within the meaning of section 7871), such 
     use shall be treated as related to the purpose or function 
     constituting the basis for the organization's exemption.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2005.

                          ____________________




                   AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

       SA 764. Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself and Mr. Nelson, of 
     Florida) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 
     him to the bill S. 1042, to authorize appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2006 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on 
     the table.

                          ____________________




                           TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

  SA 764. Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida) 
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 
1042, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for 
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       At the end of title XXII, add the following:

     SEC. 2207. WHARF UPGRADES, NAVAL STATION MAYPORT, FLORIDA.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     2204(a)(4) for the Navy for architectural and engineering 
     services and construction design, $500,000 shall be available 
     for the design of wharf upgrades at Naval Station Mayport, 
     Florida.

                          ____________________




                    AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET


            Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the 
session of the Senate on May 24, 2005, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing 
on ``Money Laundering and Terror Financing Issues in the Middle East.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and

[[Page 10958]]

Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 24, 2005, at 10 
a.m. on S. 529, a bill to authorize funding for the U.S. Anti-Doping 
Agency (USADA) and to designate it as the official doping agency of the 
U.S. Olympic Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Committee on Finance

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, May 24, 
2005, at 10 a.m., in 628 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider 
the nominations of Alex Azar, II, to be Deputy Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, 
DC; Timothy D. Adams, to be Under Secretary for International Affairs, 
U.S. Department of Treasury; Shara L. Aranoff, to be Member of the 
International Trade Commission; Suzanne C. DeFrancis to be Assistant 
Secretary for Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services; and Charles E. Johnson, to be Assistant Secretary for Budget, 
Technology and Finance, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     committee on foreign relations

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the 
Senate on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on 
nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    select committee on intelligence

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, pursuant to Rule 
26.5(a) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, that the Select Committee 
on Intelligence be authorized to meet after conclusion of the first two 
hours after the meeting of the Senate commences on May 24, 2005.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 subcommittee on federal financial management, government information, 
                       and international security

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, 
and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 24, 
2005, at 2 p.m. for a hearing regarding ``Overview of the Competitive 
Effects of Speciality Hospitals.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


    subcommittee on oversight of government management, the federal 
                workforce, and the district of columbia

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 
Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on 
Tuesday, May 24, 2005, at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, 
``Safeguarding the Merit System: A Review of the U.S. Office of Special 
Counsel.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                         PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Claire Steele, 
a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the 
remainder of today's session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Avery 
Wentzel, a legal intern on my Senate Judiciary Committee staff, be 
granted the privilege of the floor during the debate on Justice Owen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                          ORDER FOR STAR PRINT

  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent Senate report 109-69 be star 
printed with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                MEASURE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--S. 1098

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk 
that is due for a second reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the title of the bill for 
a second time.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1098) to prevent abuse of the special allowance 
     subsidies under the Federal Family Education Loan Program.

  Mr. FRIST. In order to place the bill on the calendar under the 
provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The bill will be placed on the calendar.

                          ____________________




                              APPOINTMENT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the President pro 
tempore, pursuant to Public Law 100-696, appoints the Senator from 
Colorado, Mr. Allard, as a member of the United States Capitol 
Preservation Commission.

                          ____________________




           UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous 
consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, after 
consultation with the Democratic leader, it be in order to move to 
proceed en bloc to the following nominations, if reported by the 
Judiciary Committee; provided further that they be considered under a 
total time limitation of 10 hours equally divided between the chairman 
and ranking member or their designees; provided further that following 
the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to votes on the 
confirmation of the nominations, with no further intervening action or 
debate. The nominations are as follows: David McKeague, to be U.S. 
circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit; Richard Griffin, to be U.S. 
circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit. Finally, I ask consent that 
following the votes, the President be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we are also 
hopeful and confident we can add Neilson to this group. The two 
Senators from Michigan are taking a look at her. She became very ill 
and, therefore, she was not able to move forward as these other two men 
have done. We feel confident, after speaking to the two Michigan 
Senators, that we will be able to add her to this list. She has now 
recovered her health and is back in good health, good stead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous 
consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, after 
consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Executive Calendar No. 66, the nomination of Thomas 
Griffith to be U.S. circuit judge for the District of Columbia Circuit; 
provided further that there be 4 hours equally divided for debate on 
the nomination between the chair and the ranking member or their 
designees; provided further that following the use or yielding back of 
time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the 
nomination with no further intervening action or debate; finally, that 
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the 
Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Joint Referral

  Mr. FRIST. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the 
nomination of Charles S. Ciccolella, of Virginia, to be Assistant 
Secretary of Labor for Veterans Employment and Training, be jointly 
referred to the Committees on HELP and Veterans' Affairs.

[[Page 10959]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                   ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2005

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 
a.m. on Wednesday, May 25. I further ask that following the prayer and 
the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of 
the proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be 
reserved, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business for up 
to 60 minutes, with 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader 
or his designee, and the final 30 minutes under the control of the 
Democratic leader or his designee.
  Following morning business, the Senate will return to executive 
session and resume the consideration of the nomination of Priscilla 
Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, as provided under the 
previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                                PROGRAM

  Mr. FRIST. Tomorrow, following morning business, the Senate will 
resume consideration of Priscilla Owen to be U.S. circuit judge for the 
Fifth Circuit. Under a previous agreement, at 12 noon tomorrow, we will 
proceed to the vote on the confirmation.
  Following the vote on the Owen nomination, it is my expectation that 
we will move forward with the nomination of John Bolton to be 
ambassador to the United Nations. Our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have indicated they would need a good deal of time to debate 
the nomination. We plan to complete action on the Bolton nomination 
this week, and I will work with the Democratic leader to lock in a time 
agreement on the nomination.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the distinguished majority leader will 
yield, I think it is appropriate that we have this vote at noon. We 
would have been willing to have it earlier. This way the committees can 
go about their business. I know I have a ranking members meeting at 12. 
So this will work out perfect. Even though we are waiting for the vote, 
I think this will work out well for the schedule.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have a good plan for the remainder of 
the week with that vote and proceeding with the nomination of John 
Bolton.

                          ____________________




                  ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come 
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in 
adjournment under the previous order.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:57 p.m., adjourned until 
Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.




[[Page 10960]]

             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, May 24, 2005


  The House met at 9 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro 
tempore (Mr. Price of Georgia).

                          ____________________




                   DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Speaker:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                     May 24, 2005.
       I hereby appoint the Honorable Tom Price to act as Speaker 
     pro tempore on this day.
                                                J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________




                          MORNING HOUR DEBATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 4, 2005, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists 
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour 
debates. The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with 
each party limited to not to exceed 25 minutes, and each Member, except 
the majority leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip, limited 
to not to exceed 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate extend beyond 
9:50 a.m.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 
minutes.

                          ____________________




                FUND CLEAN-UPS FOR CLOSED MILITARY BASES

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week, with the consideration of the 
defense authorization legislation and the military quality of life 
appropriation, Congress should deal with the hidden issue behind base 
closure: The toxic legacy of unexploded bombs and hazardous pollution 
left behind on our military bases.
  This is part of a much larger problem. The Defense Science Board has 
reported that unexploded bombs contaminate an area bigger than the 
States of Maryland, and Massachusetts combined.
  One out of ten Americans live within 10 miles of a former or current 
military site that contains hazardous waste identified for clean-up 
under the Federal Super Fund programs. Indeed, 34 bases shut down since 
1988 are still on the EPA Super Fund lists of worst toxic waste sites.
  Ten of these sites have groundwater mitigation contaminants that are 
not fully under control. One of the worst examples that comes to mind 
is the Massachusetts Military Reservation, a source of perchlorate, a 
toxic chemical, has contaminated 70 percent of Cape Cod's water supply, 
and more than 1,000 unexploded bombs have been discovered, some less 
than a half a mile from an elementary school.
  Former military installations with unexploded bombs are located in 
hundreds of communities across the country. And this has serious 
consequences. The most tragic example was an unexploded bomb that 
killed two 8-year-old boys and injured a 12-year-old friend while they 
were playing in their San Diego neighborhood, the site of the former 
32,000 acre Camp Elliot, used as a training site during World War II.
  In Texas, South Carolina, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and 
even here in Washington D.C., developers have built residential and 
business projects on land that has not been fully cleared of unexploded 
bombs.
  Since I have been in Congress, three times fire fighters have had to 
be pulled out of the woods, in Alaska, Texas and Colorado, because the 
heat from the forest fire was detonating bombs.
  Now, closed military bases can present significant opportunities for 
community assets. The former Lowry Air Force Base in Denver has 
generated an estimated $4 billion in economic activity for that region.
  With careful planning, the facility made the successful transition to 
civilian use, including 4,500 new homes and more than a square acre of 
park land, two community colleges and other schools.
  Glenview, Illinois, which lost its Naval Air Station in 1993, is 
another example that is now home to office space, retail stores, 
residences, golf course, park land and a train station. That has 
created 5,000 jobs and put another $1.5 billion into that local 
economy.
  Yet the reality for communities facing BRAC now, according to the 
GAO, is that more than a quarter of the bases previously closed have 
not been cleaned up and transferred. And the main impediment is the 
bombs and chemical pollution.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to no longer be missing in 
action. When we look at like Fort Ord, closed in 1991, and after a 
decade of redevelopment only 25 percent of its transformation plan has 
been completed, in large measure because it has not been able to deal 
with the clean-up of the site.
  So far the Army has cleared just 5 percent of the base's firing 
range. And they have already unearthed 8,000 live shells, in a job at 
this rate that could take 20 years.
  Our communities deserve better. It is time for us in Congress to no 
longer be missing in action. We should do two things this week. First 
we should not pass the defense authorization bill without amending it 
to require that the military plan and budget to clean up the military 
bases that it has already closed, before starting a new round of BRAC.
  Second, in the military quality of life bill, we should allocate 
funds to clean up unexploded bombs and dangerous pollution. To clean up 
the unexploded bombs just in the 1988 round would cost $69 million, 
clearly within our capacity. Indeed, I would argue that we ought to 
allocate the full $626 million to clean up all of the unexploded bombs 
and dangerous pollution in these sites.
  We have an obligation to make sure that we follow through on the 
pledges to these commitments for the military to clean up after itself, 
and it is Congress's job to make sure it happens.

                          ____________________




                   AGREEMENT ON JUDICIAL FILIBUSTERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican quest for absolute power in 
Washington was temporarily halted by 14 Senators last night. A truly 
bipartisan group of Senators, 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans came 
together to save the Senate from moving forward with an extreme power 
grab that would have undermined the very checks and balances that have 
existed in our Nation for over 200 years.
  Senator Frist and the Senate Republican leadership were prepared to 
wage an unprecedented political power grab. They wanted to change the 
rules in the middle of the game and wanted to attack our historic 
system of checks and balances so they could ram through a small number 
of judicial nominees who otherwise could not achieve a consensus.
  In reality, the power grab that the Senate Republican leadership was 
prepared to move ahead with today had very little to do with these 
seven extreme nominees. Instead, it was all an

[[Page 10961]]

attempt by the White House and conservative interests groups to clear 
the way for a Supreme Court nominee who would only need 51 votes rather 
than 60.
  Conservative interest groups and a large majority of Senate 
Republicans are not happy with the current make up of the Supreme 
Court. They do not want to see another David Souter or Anthony Kennedy 
nominated to the Supreme Court, even though they both were confirmed 
with nearly unanimous bipartisan support.
  They prefer to see President Bush nominate a Supreme Court justice 
like Clarence Thomas, who because of extreme views could not garner 
strong bipartisan support. In Thomas's case he only received 52 votes, 
and has proven to be an extremist. If the Senate had proceeded with 
this extreme power grab, President Bush would have been able to appoint 
extreme right wing judges to the Supreme Court.
  The president has already said that he most admires Justices Scalia 
and Thomas. How frightening to think of another Justice from that same 
mold.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day a group of 14 bipartisan Senators 
kept the Senate Republican leadership from moving forward with the 
extreme power grab. The bipartisan compromise was reached last night 
and shows that President Bush is not going to be able to ignore the 
moderate views of these Senators when he appoints future justices of 
the Supreme Court.
  And that is good news for our Nation. There was simply no reason for 
the Senate to take the extreme measure of eliminating the minority's 
right for input on judicial nominees. In fact, the White House has 
manufactured the so-called judicial crisis.
  Over the past 4 years, the Senate has confirmed 208 of his judicial 
nominations and turned back only 10. And that is a 95 percent 
confirmation rate, higher than any other president in modern time, 
including Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton.
  In fact, it is thanks to these confirmations that President Bush now 
presides over the lowest court vacancy rate in 15 years. Now, Mr. 
Speaker, despite what Senate Republicans are saying today, judicial 
nominees have not always received an up or down vote on the Senate 
floor. In fact, back in 2000, it was Senate Republicans that attempted 
to filibuster two of President Clinton's appointments to the 9th 
Circuit Court.
  Senator Frist, the architect of the power grab voted to continue a 
filibuster of Clinton nominee, Richard Paez. There are also other ways 
Senators can prevent a nominee from receiving an up or down vote on the 
floor. Judicial nominees can and have been stalled in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. More than one-third of President Clinton's appeals 
court nominees never received an up or down vote on the floor because 
Senator, Hatch, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee refused to 
bring the nominees names up for a vote in the committee.
  It is extremely disingenuous of Senator Frist to say that all 
nominees are entitled to an up or down vote, when he himself helped 
Senate Republicans block President Clinton's nominees in the late 
1990s. You did not hear Senator Frist demanding an up or down vote 
then.
  Now, the bipartisan agreement reached last night will keep two of the 
President's extreme nominees from moving forward. And I would hope the 
President would learn from last night's action that unlike the House, 
the Senate is not a chamber that is going to rubber stamp his extreme 
views.
  Let us hope that President Bush was listening and will resist 
nominating extreme judges to our courts in future.

                          ____________________




                                 RECESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess until 10 a.m.
  Accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 13 minutes a.m.), the House stood in 
recess until 10 a.m.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1000
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Kline) at 10 a.m.

                          ____________________




                                 PRAYER

  The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following 
prayer:
  Lord God, friend of all, but especially the poor and the alienated, 
the widow and the orphan, You are not only the foundation of faith, but 
the model of generosity for Your people.
  Out of Your goodness we are created. Out of Your love we are 
sustained. Out of Your hope for us You give us freedom. Help us 
personally to grow in Your image and likeness.
  May this Nation, under the leadership of this Congress, grow also in 
responsible freedom and generous service to those most in need of 
protection, diligent attention, and steady encouragement.
  We will never fail to meet our responsibilities, Lord, if we are 
truly dedicated to You, the Most High, and give to others as You have 
given to us, if we live with grateful and generous hearts today, now 
and forever. Amen.

                          ____________________




                              THE JOURNAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the 
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

                          ____________________




                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Mrs. MALONEY led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________




                        MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

  A message from the Senate by Mr. Monahan, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate has passed a bill of the following title in 
which the concurrence of the House is requested:

       S. 188. An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 
     2011 to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
     Program.

  The message also announced that pursuant to section 1928a-1928d of 
title 22, United States Code, as amended, the Chair, on behalf of the 
Vice President, appoints the following Member as Acting Vice Chairman 
to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for the spring meeting in Ljubljana, 
Slovenia, May 2005:
  the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy).

                          ____________________




                           STEM CELL RESEARCH

  (Mr. DeLAY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today on the floor of the House, we will 
momentarily suspend the annual spring appropriations debates to provide 
a vital and noble service to the American people. We will consider two 
bills that transcend both party and politics and oblige us to engage in 
a moral and metaphysical inquiry into the very nature of man.
  If it sounds a little more sobering and important than the regular 
goings on around here, well, we can only hope, Mr. Speaker.
  The first bill to be considered under suspension of the rules, and 
sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), would, for the 
first time, direct Federal funding for research on the stem cells found 
in umbilical cords of newborn children.
  Well-developed cord-blood stem cells, unlike stem cells obtained via 
the destruction of human embryos, have proven valuable in the treatment 
of disease, 67 of them to be precise, including leukemia and sickle 
cell anemia. The Smith bill will direct funds

[[Page 10962]]

for improved research and therapies using these proven cord-blood cells 
while expanding the existing Federal bone marrow stem cell research 
program as well. It will pass with bipartisan support because none of 
its provisions predicate its available funding upon the destruction of 
human life.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, of the second bill on the calendar today, 
sponsored by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the same cannot 
be said. The Castle bill is both divisive and, to put it bluntly, 
dismissive of the dignity of human life at its embryonic stage. It has, 
therefore, incited loud, and in too many cases, harsh, advocacy on both 
sides of the debate.
  But even in the midst of vocal unrelenting support for and opposition 
to the Castle bill, we must recognize that this is one of those issues 
that has no easy answers. Proponents of the Castle bill, try as they 
might to find wiggle room, will vote to fund with taxpayer dollars the 
dismemberment of living distinct human beings for the purposes of 
medical experimentation. And those who oppose the bill, as I do, will 
do nothing less than to block Federal funding for what could, in theory 
at least, represent a potential advance in scientific inquiry.
  Given the lack of nuance of our political and media culture, Congress 
is unfortunately facing a perceived choice between supporting on the 
one hand children unlucky enough to be born with debilitating diseases, 
and on the other, children unlucky enough to be unwanted by the clinic 
customers who had them created in the first place.
  Talk show rhetoric notwithstanding, Mr. Speaker, there are no easy 
choices. This is not a debate between science and ideology, as some 
would have us believe, nor is it a debate between those who care about 
human life and those who do not. No one in this body is unmoved by the 
plight of diseased victims. We have friends and family members among 
them. Nor is anyone insensitive to the ethical ramifications of a 
medical practice that purports to save some lives by destroying others. 
But, after all, that is why we were elected: not to make the easy 
choices, but to make the hard ones.
  We will argue one of those choices today, and I urge everyone on both 
sides of the issues to do so with vigor and with respect. Our decision 
today, quite literally a matter of life and death, is a necessary and 
important step in our national conversation about the kind of people we 
will be in a world of ever more promising and ever more unnerving 
medical technologies. Lives will be changed, and perhaps ended, because 
of the path that we choose today.
  Today's debate will be our privilege to conduct and witness, Mr. 
Speaker, and I have every confidence all sides will do so with the 
respect and compassion this issue deserves.

                          ____________________




              SPACE ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE DEVOTED TO PEACE

  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this week I will offer an amendment to the 
defense authorization bill, cosponsored by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), 
which will reaffirm the policy of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Act of 1958, signed into law by President Eisenhower, that it is the 
policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted 
to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.
  This amendment will reaffirm that it is U.S. policy to preserve peace 
in space by not deploying space-based weapons. Today's New York Times 
states: ``Congress and the administration need to assess whether a 
multilateral treaty to ban space weapons might not leave the Nation far 
safer than a unilateral drive to put the first weapons in space.''
  Please support my amendment, cosponsored by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) to 
keep space devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind; 
and support H.R. 2420, now cosponsored by 28 Members of the House, 
which sets the stage for a multilateral treaty to keep space devoted to 
peaceful purposes.

                          ____________________




                HEALTH INSURANCE PATIENT OWNERSHIP PLAN

  (Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as a third-generation physician, I 
have seen our health care system drive patients and doctors further and 
further apart. The problem with our current system is that patients are 
prevented from having immediate control and ownership over critical 
health care decisions.
  Right now, employers or the government determine which health 
benefits are included in an insurance policy, and it may not be what 
the patient needs or wants. When patients voice their concerns, 
insurance companies respond with a deaf ear because the patient cannot 
change the policy. They are excluded from that decision.
  Nearly nine out of ten companies with fewer than 200 employees offer 
only one health plan. What this means is that the person most affected 
by the health care, the patient, has little or no input into the type 
of coverage they have. Patients should be able to control their health 
care.
  Mr. Speaker, we should think about health care in a way that gives 
patients the power to select who takes care of them and where, that 
puts health care choices back in the hands of patients.
  Defined contribution plans do this, and they are the hallmark of H. 
Res. 215, the Health Insurance Patient Ownership Plan. I ask my 
colleagues for their support on this new initiative.

                          ____________________




                           STEM CELL RESEARCH

  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the President wants to create a culture of 
life. Stem cell research offers scientists the opportunity to extend 
life and the quality of life for current and future generations of 
Americans. In fact, stem cell research offers mankind continued insight 
into life itself.
  Who among us has not had a loved one look at us through the vacant 
eyes of Alzheimer's, tremble with Parkinson's as they reached for a 
glass of water, or watched a child inject themselves daily with 
insulin? How many more lives must be ended or ravaged? How much more 
unimaginable suffering must be endured until government gives 
researchers the wherewithal to simply do their jobs?
  With all speed, this body must pass the Castle-DeGette Stem Cell 
Enhancement Research Act. Life is too precious to wait any longer.

                          ____________________




                 STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC AND RESEARCH ACT

  (Mr. RYUN of Kansas asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, the goal of stem cell research 
should be to help our fellow human beings. The debate on this issue 
has, unfortunately, moved into dangerous unethical territory when 
perfectly moral alternatives exist.
  Rather than debating about unethical methods of research, effective, 
principled alternatives should be sought out that successfully treat 
patients and offer potential channels for further treatment and 
research. There are countless opportunities besides embryonic stem cell 
research that have proven successful.
  Adult stem cells have shown great potential and have effectively 
helped patients. Another alternative is cord-blood stem cells. These 
are a neglected resource that could be used to treat a diverse body of 
people. Evidence has demonstrated that cord-blood stem cells have 
treated a variety of problems, such as spinal cord injuries and 
neurological diseases.

[[Page 10963]]

  By supporting H.R. 2520 later today, progress can be made in finding 
solutions to many medical questions we have to face. H.R. 2520 provides 
an ethical solution to this issue, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support it.

                          ____________________




                           STEM CELL RESEARCH

  (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today the House can vote to give millions of 
Americans suffering from diseases new hope. Patients, doctors, and 
scientists are desperately awaiting the potential that stem cell 
research has for treating diseases like Alzheimer's, ALS, cancer, heart 
diseases, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and so many others.
  My State of California is already on the way. Californians 
overwhelmingly support this research and decided not to tie the hands 
of our scientists, not to block the promising new opportunities that 
stem cell research affords.
  Now our Congress has the opportunity to follow suit. This is the kind 
of research we wanted when we created the National Institutes of 
Health. Federally funded research ensures that the public benefits and 
that the research is ethically conducted.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 810.

                          ____________________




     YOUNGER GENERATION IMPORTANT IN DISCUSSIONS OF SOCIAL SECURITY

  (Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, during the month of May, many parents and 
grandparents, as myself, will begin to celebrate college graduations 
and high school graduations of the next generation of workers in this 
country. This is the group that we should be engaging in the debate on 
Social Security reform. This is the group that stands the most risk if 
the current system cannot sustain itself.
  I encourage my colleagues to engage this group of individuals as we 
begin this debate, to help them understand how important it is that we 
put back the security in Social Security for this generation, and that 
we help them understand the role that a safety net of Social Security 
has within an overall retirement package.
  So I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to begin this 
debate with these newly fresh-minted graduates as they take their place 
in exciting new careers and as they conduct their lives and help us 
with Social Security.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1015
URGING SUPPORT FOR H.R. 810, STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005

  (Mr. BASS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, today we will take up H.R. 810, the stem cell 
research bill; and I agree with the distinguished majority leader. The 
debate that we have today will be about life and death. It will be 
about the lives of many millions of children who have diabetes, who 
want to live a fulfilling life and have hope for finding cures at some 
point in the future, about those who are paralyzed, about those who 
have congenital heart problems, about those who suffer from cancer and 
Alzheimer's and other diseases, debilitating diseases.
  We need to give the scientific community an opportunity to address 
these important issues and to do so in such a fashion that is ethical, 
that has adequate government oversight, that does not allow other 
countries around the world to take over. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 810, 
with its 200 cosponsors, will pass today because America wants to find 
cures for these diseases and not leave it to other countries around the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to support H.R. 810.

                          ____________________




               STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005

  (Mr. CLEAVER asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, as Americans, we continually strive toward 
progress. Today we find at our disposal a tool for healing that is 
unlike any the world has previously known, a tool with the potential to 
cure our most terrible diseases and ease the suffering of over a half 
million Americans in my State alone.
  Our Nation is blessed with the greatest minds and resources on the 
planet. My district, Missouri five, there are two citizens, Jim and 
Virginia Stowers, who have dedicated their personal fortune of nearly 
$2 billion to conduct basic biomedical research and fight these 
diseases. The Stowers Institute employs brilliant researchers from more 
than 20 countries to use these tools to bridge the gap between diseases 
and cures.
  Across the United States, Americans are voicing their support for 
stem cell research. Poll after poll after poll shows that Americans, 
regardless of political affiliation or religion, support using stem 
cell research as a tool to fight diseases. As a fourth generation 
ordained minister, I am delighted to be able to support H.R. 810 to 
ease the suffering.

                          ____________________




                    PROTECT ZARA AND THE SNOWFLAKES

  (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PITTS. 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.

                          ____________________




   IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 810, STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005

  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, we will be hearing a great deal today about 
the humane and helpful and hopeful research of embryonic stem cells. 
This is an advance similar to advances in past years of blood 
transfusions and organ transplants. And to be fair, some patients do 
not want to take part in blood transfusions and organ transplants for 
personal reasons.
  However, for most Americans, embryonic stem cell research falls well 
within public ethical standards. It is something that we should be 
supporting.
  We will hear from some today that cord blood and adult stem cells 
hold promise. Not nearly so much promise as embryonic stem cells. 
Supporting cord blood research at the expense of supporting embryonic 
stem cell research is like buying a Schwinn bicycle

[[Page 10964]]

to travel across the country. Potentially useful, but it is not likely 
to get us there.
  This is something that is well within the public ethical norms. We 
should be supporting H.R. 810.

                          ____________________




                HONORING THE REVEREND DOUG WESTMORELAND

  (Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, one of the privileges we have from time 
to time is to stand and recognize those in our community who do good, 
who improve the quality of life, who make our communities a better 
place to live.
  And today I have that opportunity to recognize Reverend Douglas 
Westmoreland, the pastor of Tusculum Hills Baptist Church in Nashville, 
Tennessee. In June of 1975, 30 years ago, Reverend Westmoreland 
answered the call and began sharing his ministry with the members of 
Tusculum Hills Baptist Church.
  It is my privilege today to join with those members and to thank him 
for his appreciation of the congregation, for his guidance he has given 
the congregation and the inspiration that he has given not only to the 
congregation but also to our entire community. We thank Reverend 
Westmoreland for his continued service, and I thank the Members of this 
body for joining me in honoring him.

                          ____________________




     THE ISSUE OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

  (Mr. BURGESS asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we are going to take up a bill this morning 
that would greatly expand Federal funding for embryonic stem cell 
research, and that is the issue this morning, the issue of Federal 
funding for this process. The question is, are we going to use taxpayer 
dollars for destruction of human embryos in order to further a certain 
line of research?
  President Bush in 2001 outlined his policy. There are 78 stem cell 
lines available at the National Institutes of Health available for 
study. Today's bill would in fairness expand those lines but would do 
so at the expense of human embryos that would be human embryos 
destroyed with taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no prohibition on any couple who has an 
embryonic at an IVF clinic, at a reproductive endocrinologist clinic, 
who wishes to donate that embryo to a private lab for development into 
a stem cell line. That can happen today. There is no such prohibition.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the issue today is whether or not we are going to 
use taxpayer dollars to fund that process. I believe the President had 
it right in 2001. It was correct to put parameters and boundaries 
around this research.

                          ____________________




 URGING MEMBERS TO SUPPORT FEDERAL FUNDING OF STEM CELL AND CORD BLOOD 
                                RESEARCH

  (Mr. COOPER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, if Members are interested in finding a cure 
for Parkinson's disease, diabetes, cancer, and many other of the dread 
diseases that we face, please vote for this stem cell bill today and 
please vote for the cord blood bill today. They need to vote for both.
  The narrow issue may seem whether we expand federally funded research 
into embryonic stem cell work, but I think a better way to view the 
issue is whether we allow the continual discarding of embryos from IVF 
clinics or whether we allow those to be used for productive and life-
giving research. This is a very important moment for this House. I 
would urge all of my colleagues to do the right thing for the future of 
our kids and grandkids because this research needs to be conducted. It 
needs to be conducted with Federal support. It needs to be conducted 
here in America.
  There was a breakthrough just last week in South Korea. Are we going 
to send our loved ones overseas in order to get this lifesaving 
research? We should do it here.

                          ____________________




     URGING SUPPORT FOR H.R. 2520 AND H.R. 810, STEM CELL RESEARCH

  (Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I just left a press conference; and four of 
the speakers there spoke about their diseases, none of which could be 
cured by adult stem cell research: a form of cancer, Parkinson's, 
juvenile diabetes, and a person who is a paraplegic.
  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that every single one of us 
has many constituents who have been to our offices over the years who 
have had these problems and have come to our offices for help. This is 
not the time to allow bad science or ideology to get in the way of 
doing what is right for the people of this country and of the world. 
There are 110 million people in the United States of America who 
potentially could be helped by embryonic stem cell research.
  I have just been going through what some of the experts have said. 
One said: ``Umbilical cord and embryonic stem cells are not in any way 
interchangeable,'' David Scadden, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell 
Institute.
  The National Institutes of Health said: ``Human embryonic stem cells 
are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult 
stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent, 
that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo 
except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent.''
  ``The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is we just don't know at 
this point what each can do, and we ought to be investigating both,'' 
Dr. Joanne Kutzberg at Duke University.
  One expert after another has said that there is tremendous potential 
there. Let us not let it go to waste. Vote ``yes'' on both of these 
bills.

                          ____________________




AGAINST FORCING PRO-LIFE COMMUNITY TO FUND EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and for the sincerity of his purpose in 
bringing forward legislation today that would fund the destruction of 
human embryos for the purpose of scientific research with Federal tax 
dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not a scientist. I do know that there have been 
more than 60 successful treatments using adult stem cells; there have 
been zero treatments developed using embryonic stem cells.
  But let us be clear today about this debate. Embryonic stem cell 
research today, despite my objection and the objection of tens of 
millions of pro-life Americans, embryonic stem cell research is legal 
in America today. It goes on using private dollars every day. The 
debate on the floor today that the gentleman from Delaware just 
referred to, his legislation has to do with using Federal tax dollars 
to fund research that involves the destruction of human embryos. I 
believe it is morally wrong to destroy human embryos for the purposes 
of research, but I believe it is doubly morally wrong to force millions 
of pro-life Americans to see their tax dollars used to support research 
that they find morally offensive.
  Let the debate begin.

                          ____________________




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2419, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 291 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.

[[Page 10965]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 291

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2006, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived except for section 104. Where points of order are 
     waived against part of a paragraph, points of order against a 
     provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only 
     against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purposes of debate only.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 291 is an open rule that provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 2419, the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations bill. The rule provides 1 hour of general 
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also 
provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  I would like to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to reiterate that we 
bring forth this resolution under a fair and open rule.
  Historically, appropriations bills have come to the floor of the 
House governed by open rules. We continue to do so in order to allow 
each and every Member of this House the opportunity to submit 
amendments for consideration, obviously as long as they are germane 
under the rules of the House.
  This legislation before us today, Mr. Speaker, appropriates almost 
$30 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Departments of 
the Interior and Energy, and several independent agencies. This bill is 
truly fiscally sound, representing a reduction of $131.7 million from 
the fiscal year 2005 legislation and the same spending level as was 
requested by the President in his budget request. At the same time, Mr. 
Speaker, this legislation provides the resources necessary to address 
the energy and water needs of the United States.
  H.R. 2419 provides $4.7 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 
The corps is the world's premier public engineering organization, 
responding to the needs of the Nation in peace and in war. For over 200 
years the corps has been involved in such important missions as flood 
control, shoreline prevention, navigation and safety on the waterways 
of this great Nation. The vital work of the corps will continue under 
this act, which includes a vigorous civil works program.
  The bill also includes a number of significant changes to improve 
project execution and financial management, including more responsible 
use of reprogramming, continuing contracts and implementation of long-
term financial planning.
  I would like to highlight a corps project of particular interest to 
my community, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program. The 
restoration of the Everglades, that wonder of nature, is the largest 
and most significant environmental initiative that this country has 
ever undertaken. The legislation continues our commitment to the 
restoration of this environmental treasure with an appropriation of 
$137 million. I am pleased to report that Everglades restoration is 
moving forward expeditiously and effectively. Congress, and the 
Committee on Appropriations especially, should be proud of this 
environmentally sound action.
  The National Nuclear Security Administration, which includes the 
nuclear weapons program, defense nuclear nonproliferation, naval 
reactors and the Office of the Administrator, is funded at $8.8 
billion, an increase of $24 million over fiscal year 2005. I am glad to 
see that the appropriators increased this program. Nonproliferation is 
essential to the defense of the homeland. Our work across the globe, 
especially in Russia, makes it ever more difficult for rogue states and 
terrorists to obtain the weapons necessary to attack the United States 
or our Armed Forces abroad or our allies.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) for truly extraordinary 
work on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, 
to support both the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to today's consideration of H.R. 2419, 
which reflects much thought and long-term planning on behalf of the 
Committee on Appropriations. This year's energy and water bill means a 
great deal to my constituents and to my home in Sacramento.
  Sacramento's history has long been intertwined with flood control. 
When the city endured a near catastrophic flood in 1986, the community 
quickly realized they did not have nearly the level of flood protection 
necessary to fully safeguard the region. After the city again faced 
more floods in 1997, the community set off to achieve 200-year flood 
protection. However, until that day arrives, flooding remains a very 
constant and real threat, and continued Federal assistance plays an 
important role to attaining that goal.
  In spite of years of efforts, Sacramento still remains one of the 
most flood-prone and threatened cities in the country, paling in 
comparison to the level of protection enjoyed by other river cities. 
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento's flood risk 
is among the highest of major urban areas in the country.
  Located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers, 
Sacramento is the hub of a six-county regional economy that provides 
800,000 jobs for 1.5 million people. A major flood along the American 
River would cripple this economy, cause between $7 billion and $16 
billion in direct property damages and likely result in significant 
loss of life. The risk of serious flooding poses an unacceptable threat 
to the safety and economic well-being of Sacramento and to California's 
State Capitol.
  With the steady support of Congress, Sacramento has already made good 
progress toward our initial goal of achieving 100-year flood protection 
for the region and ultimately moving as quickly as possible towards 
200-year flood protection. At the beginning of this year, FEMA revised 
its flood maps for the majority of Sacramento to reflect 100-year flood 
protection. But this level of flood protection is still a far cry from 
the protection afforded other large river cities and at least 100,000 
people and 1,500 businesses continue to be at high risk in the south 
Sacramento area.
  Fortunately, as a result of long, bipartisan negotiations, Congress 
has authorized a suite of projects that will

[[Page 10966]]

achieve 200-year flood protection. Upon completion of the authorized 
projects to improve area levees, modify the outlets at Folsom Dam and 
raise Folsom Dam by 7 feet, Sacramento will attain its long-term flood 
control goal. I deeply appreciate the Committee on Appropriations's 
commitment to funding these projects to help give Sacramento the level 
of flood protection that it both needs and deserves.
  I am also quite pleased with the work that the committee has done to 
ensure corps projects are executed in an efficient manner with improved 
financial management. For example, the work necessary to achieve 200-
year flood protection will take 15 to 20 years to complete. The 
committee is asking that the corps develop a 5-year plan and a vision 
for water infrastructure in the country. The current year-by-year 
strategy would not be an efficient manner to plan for the significant 
financial demands. This would ultimately compromise the ability to 
implement the region's flood control projects. Efforts to 
comprehensively interrogate financial planning and project management 
in the corps will greatly benefit not only the execution of the 
projects, but also the local and State partner's ability to plan their 
budget.
  It is certainly understandable that no matter how extensive the 
planning and preparation for a project, that as it moves forward, it 
may get off schedule. With that in mind, it is certainly helpful for 
the corps to be able to reprogram funding to projects that can keep 
progressing. But this should only happen if the corps can return the 
funding back to the project the funds originally came from. To not do 
so is a complete disregard of congressional directive. In such tight 
financial times, the corps must curb this practice.
  I strongly support the committee directive that the corps 
specifically identify all of the funding owed to projects as a result 
of reprogramming. I also believe integrating this funding into the 
corps budget will help clear the books and assist the corps in 
efficient project execution and financial management.
  By working together, the Congress, the administration and the corps 
of Engineers will be better prepared to ensure limited Federal 
resources are spent efficiently, commitments to local sponsors are 
honored and projects remain on schedule.
  I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the committee's 
work determining funding priorities for the Department of Energy. This 
year's Energy and Water Appropriations bill highlights the committee's 
focus on other long-range issues, noticeably their commitment to 
nuclear nonproliferation.
  Sadly, this President's go-it-alone approach has been ineffective in 
reducing the threat by cooperating and working with our allies and 
others around the world to bring economic, social and political 
pressure to bear on any country trying to gain nuclear weapon 
capabilities.
  It is illogical to expect any other nation to listen to Americans 
speak of nonproliferation when we are developing bunker-busting nuclear 
weapons. I stand with the committee's position to stop nuclear earth 
penetrator research. Considering the vast amount of nuclear material 
that is not secured in the former Soviet Union, I believe it is a much 
better investment to fund the Sustainable Stockpile Initiative. Through 
this program, we will be able to increase our Nation's security by 
keeping their Cold War-era nuclear weapons and materials from falling 
into the hands of terrorist organizations.
  My one disappointment with this rule, Mr. Speaker, is that yesterday 
afternoon the Committee on Rules refused to make in order a good 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz). 
Her amendment would provide the Department of Energy an additional $250 
million to accelerate energy research, development, demonstration and 
deployment. This investment will help our Nation harness technology to 
secure greater independence from foreign sources of energy. As we face 
rapidly rising prices for crude oil and gasoline at the pump, I believe 
this issue is very timely and of great relevance to our debate today 
about the funding priorities for the Department of Energy.
  This bill moves our country forward on many levels, from improving 
local water infrastructure, to bigger-picture Corps of Engineers 
financial management and efficiency issues, to global issues like 
nuclear nonproliferation. I strongly support the underlying bill and am 
pleased it was reported in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the rule under consideration.
  Yesterday, I asked the Committee on Rules to provide a waiver so that 
the House could consider my amendment to create the energy technology 
to power the 21st century initiative which would provide $250 million 
to accelerate the research, development, demonstration and deployment 
of new energy technologies and make our Nation less reliant on foreign 
energy. Unfortunately, my request was denied along party lines.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question much of our energy supply is 
controlled by foreign nations. Just as we are trying to improve 
national security, we have failed to complement these efforts with the 
energy policies that would move us towards greater energy independence.
  The recently passed Energy Policy Act failed to adequately invest in 
renewable energy and conservation, directing $600 million to these 
efforts while allocating more than 40 percent of the bill's $8.1 
billion in tax cuts, that is, $3.2 billion, toward the oil and gas 
industries, the same traditional resources that in large part we depend 
on foreign countries for.
  Mr. Speaker, if we do not change our focus, our country's consumption 
of oil will only increase. By 2025, oil usage will increase to 28.3 
million barrels per day, with imports accounting for 19.68 million of 
those barrels. Leaving our energy security in the hands of 
international oil barons is a foolish and dangerous approach.

                              {time}  1045

  That is why I wanted to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 
Energy and Water Appropriations Act that would provide the Department 
of Energy with $250 million to accelerate the research, development, 
demonstration, and deployment of new energy technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, the benefits of controlling our own energy sources are 
enormous. A down payment of $250 million would spur much-needed work in 
the emerging sector of energy technology. We could bring to bear 
reliable and successful methods of wind, solar, biomass, hydrogen, and 
other forms of energy. It could bring new ways to bring cleaner, safer, 
and more efficient energy with more traditional sources, including coal 
and oil. It would put the United States on a course to energy 
independence, something we all talk about.
  It would also help maintain our standing as a world leader with 
regard to scientific discovery by establishing a 21st-century engine to 
discover new, more efficient, cleaner energy sources for the future. We 
would help to create new, high-paying jobs and keep the United States 
on the cutting edge of science and technology. With appropriate 
investments, consumers as well as businesses will have greater, rather 
than fewer, and less expensive options.
  In the end, shifting our energy economy means improved national 
security, more American jobs, a stronger economy, and a cleaner 
environment. It is time to demand action on policy initiatives that 
will set the United States free from its reliance on imported oil.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  With regard to an amendment that was allegedly not made in order, I 
want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that we brought forth this legislation 
under an open rule. Obviously, an amendment has to be germane and not 
violate the

[[Page 10967]]

rules of the House. We very much attempted to bring forth this 
appropriations bill under an open rule, and we are pleased that we were 
able to do so, and obviously that permits the amendment process to be 
wide open and obviously fair.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Gibbons), my distinguished friend and a great leader in this House.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for 
allowing me today to rise in support of the rule, but in opposition to 
the underlying bill. First, I would like to thank the chairman, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for allowing me time to speak 
on an issue that is very important to my home State of Nevada.
  Mr. Speaker, since the proposal of Yucca Mountain over 2 decades ago, 
Nevadans have collectively fought against this ill-advised project. I 
hope that one day I can come to the House floor and tell the people of 
Nevada that they no longer need to worry about this disastrous 
proposal. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, today is not that day.
  I agree with my colleagues that we must find a solution to the 
escalating energy problem in this country. However, digging a hole in 
the Nevada desert and burying the waste is simply not the answer. The 
Yucca Mountain project was based on 1980s science and technology and 
has no place in our country today. We need to focus on 21st-century 
solutions like reprocessing and transmutation processes to reduce our 
nuclear waste. Going forward with the Yucca Mountain project is like 
still using cassette tapes or even 8-track stereo tapes in an era of 
MP3 players and Ipods.
  In addition to this disregard of modern technology, it seems now the 
DOE does not even care about ensuring the science they are basing the 
project on, outdated or not, is even accurate. I met with Secretary 
Bodman, along with the rest of the Nevada delegation, and we discussed 
the recent scandal regarding the falsification of science from some 
employees directly involved in the project. Despite the manipulation of 
the data and the complete disregard for quality assurance that the 
employees have shown, the Secretary demonstrated absolutely no 
willingness to review the Yucca Mountain project.
  I know most of my colleagues are not following this issue as closely 
as we are in Nevada; but for the sake of government accountability, we 
must halt this project until we have time to fully investigate these 
accusations.
  As Members of Congress, we are entrusted with responsibly spending 
the taxpayers' dollars, and now is the time for us to stand up and 
demand that the Department of Energy be accountable for its actions. We 
are only wasting our constituents' tax dollars by pumping money toward 
a project that continues to crumble from the inside.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the funding levels for 
Yucca Mountain in the underlying bill. However, I will support the rule 
so that we can move forward with debate on this very important issue.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can 
consider the Schwartz amendment that was offered in the Committee on 
Rules last night, but rejected on a straight party-line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the Schwartz amendment proposes an important new 
initiative to help the United States reduce our dependence on imported 
oil and strengthen our national security. It would provide the 
Department of Energy with an additional $250 million next year to 
accelerate the research and deployment of energy technology that will 
reduce our country's consumption of fossil fuels.
  I also want to point out that the cost of this amendment is fully 
paid for and will not increase the deficit by one penny. The funding 
for this amendment will come from a small, less than 1 percent 
reduction in a tax cut for people making over $1 million this year.
  A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote 
on the Schwartz amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from 
voting on this responsible and aggressive approach to help our Nation 
out of its dependency on foreign oil.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the 
text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on the previous question so that 
we can have an opportunity to vote on the Schwartz amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to 
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. 
Res. 291.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  This is an important appropriations bill, and it is one that we are 
pleased, obviously, to bring forward under the great tradition of open 
rules. So I very strongly support not only the underlying legislation 
but also the rule, and I would ask for an affirmative vote by all of 
our colleagues on the previous question as well.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, while I am not present for 
today's debate on this rule or on the underlying Fiscal Year 2006 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill due to an illness in my family, I 
do urge my colleagues to support both measures.
  This is an open rule and allows for full debate on funding for the 
Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and all programs and 
activities of the Department of Energy in the next fiscal year.
  Writing this bill was a challenging task, as Subcommittee Chairman 
Hobson had over $130 million less to spend in Fiscal Year 2006 than was 
spent in Fiscal Year 2005. I commend Chairman Hobson for the tremendous 
leadership he has shown in constructing this bill and for garnering 
bipartisan support for it in both his Subcommittee and the full 
Appropriations Committee. I fully expect it will pass this House with 
strong bipartisan support as well.
  I particularly want to thank Chairman Hobson for the continued 
commitment he has shown to the Department of Energy's Environmental 
Management program and cleanup of the Hanford site in Washington state. 
The Administration's proposed budget reductions at Hanford would have 
jeopardized the progress and cleanup momentum that has been achieved 
through accelerated cleanup over the past 3 years and put cleanup 
deadlines in jeopardy of being missed. The restoration of over $200 
million for Hanford in this bill will ensure that cleanup momentum 
continues, the Department has the ability to meet its legal timelines, 
and that skilled workers remain on the job.
  The Federal government has a legal and moral obligation to cleanup 
Hanford and the Nation's other nuclear waste sites, and this bill 
ensures that these promises are kept.
  In addition to significantly restoring funds to Hanford's budget, 
this bill provides funding for preservation of the B Reactor, for 
operation of the Volpentest HAMMER training facility, and for the 
critical effort to develop replacement lab space for Pacific Northwest 
National Lab scientists who will soon be required to vacate their 
current workspaces for cleanup work. PNNL is home to world-class 
researchers and ensuring they are able to continue their work is 
important for our Nation and for the economic future of the TriCities 
community in Washington state.
  While water project funding is much tighter this year due to overall 
spending constraints, I am pleased that several important Washington 
state initiatives were included in this bill. Scarce funds will be used 
to continue the progress on the Bureau or Reclamation study of 
additional water storage in the Yakima River Basin that I began in 
2003. Additional funding is also provided for work to address depletion 
of the Odessa Subaquifer, the Port

[[Page 10968]]

of Sunnyside's wastewater treatment and wetland restoration project, 
and the deepening of the Columbia River channel.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support passage of 
the underlying Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:

  Previous Question H. Res. 291--Rule for H.R. 2419, FY06 Energy and 
                          Water Appropriations

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if offered by Representative Schwartz of 
     Pennsylvania or a designee. The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for 
     a division of the question in the committee of the whole or 
     in the House.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

                  Amendment to H.R. 2419, as Reported

                Offered by Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania

       Page 19, line 5, insert ``(increased by $250,000,000)'' 
     after ``$1,762,888,000''.
       Page 45, after line 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 503. In the case of any taxpayer with adjusted gross 
     income in excess of $1,000,000 for the taxable year ending in 
     calendar year 2006, the amount of tax reduction for the 
     taxpayer for such year resulting from enactment of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 
     (Pub. L. 107-16) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-27) shall be reduced 
     by 0.78 percent.

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 190, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 203]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Boehlert
     Brady (TX)
     Burton (IN)
     Cardoza
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Gohmert
     Hastings (WA)
     Istook
     Jones (NC)
     Kuhl (NY)
     McDermott
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Poe
     Pryce (OH)
     Reynolds
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Walsh
     Watt
     Wexler
     Wu


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1115

  Messrs. BISHOP of New York, ORTIZ, RUPPERSBERGER, BERMAN, GENE GREEN 
of Texas, Ms. WASSER-
MAN SCHULTZ and Ms. SOLIS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, due to other obligations, I unfortunately 
missed the following vote on the House floor today, Tuesday, May 24, 
2005.
  Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 
No. 203 (On Ordering the Previous Question--Providing for consideration 
of the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water 
development for FY 2006).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page 10969]]



                          ____________________




                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2419 and that I may include 
tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




    MAKING IN ORDER AMENDED VERSION OF H.R. 2419, ENERGY AND WATER 
                  DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during 
consideration of H.R. 2419, pursuant to House Resolution 291, the 
amendment that I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted in 
the House and in the Committee of the Whole and considered as the 
original text for purpose of further amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment to H.R. 2419 offered by Mr. Hobson:
       Add at the end the following:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2006''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 291 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2419.

                              {time}  1120


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water development for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Goodlatte in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to submit to the House for its 
consideration H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2006.
  The Committee on Appropriations approved this bill unanimously on May 
18, and I believe it is a good bill that merits the support of the 
entire House.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide range of 
Federal programs including such diverse matters as flood control, 
navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste 
disposal, advanced scientific research, applied energy research, 
maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear non-proliferation.
  Total funding for energy and water development in fiscal year 2006 is 
$29,746,000,000. This funding amount represent a decrease of $728,000 
below the budget request and $86.3 million below the current fiscal 
year. This bill is right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and 
provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House.
  Title I of the bill provides for the Civil Works Program of the Army 
Corps of Engineers; the Formally Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
Program, which is executed by the corps; and the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Committee 
recommends a total of $4.746 billion for title I activities, $294 
million below the current year and $414 million above the current 
budget request.
  I want to explain a couple of things about the corps as we go through 
this and take a little time on this because some of this is a change.
  For a number of years, the corps Civil Works Program has been 
oversubscribed where Congress kept giving the corps more and more 
projects to do but not enough money to do them. We took steps last year 
to put the corps on the road to fiscal recovery by eliminating the 
number of new starts and concentrating resources on the completion of 
ongoing construction projects. We also asked OMB to adopt a new 
approach to future corps budget requests so that we can use our limited 
resources to complete the most valuable projects efficiently, instead 
of spreading those resources very widely to make incremental progress 
across a large number of projects.
  The fiscal year 2006 budget request adopts such a performance-based 
approach for the corps budget. Proposing to use the ratio of remaining 
costs to remaining benefits is the primary determinant of which 
construction projects should receive priority consideration for 
funding. While this ratio may not be a perfect measure of merit of all 
the projects, the budget request represents good faith from the OMB to 
concentrate the corps' limited resources on finishing the most 
worthwhile projects that are already under construction.
  Until we begin to clear out the enormous backlog of ongoing work, we 
are reluctant to start new projects; therefore, we did not include any 
new starts again this year in this bill.
  One consequence of adopting this new performance-based approach to 
the corps is that the funds available for member adds for corps 
projects are very limited this year. In part, this is because for the 
first time in years we received a budget request in which many 
congressional priorities are already at the funded level. I think this 
is an improvement. However, even with that request as a good starting 
point, the total amount that we can provide for the corps is less than 
what the House passed in fiscal year 2005.
  With a healthy base request and a lean 302(b) allocation, we did not 
add as much for Member projects as we have in previous years. We were 
harsh, but fair, in how we dealt with these Member projects.
  Our fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water bill makes major strides to 
improving the corps' project execution reprogrammings and continuing 
contracts. For a workload of approximately 2,000 projects, the Chief of 
Engineers recently told me that the corps had 2,000 projects, but they 
had 20,000 reprogrammings. We think this is not good management, and we 
have done a lot in our bill to try to focus the corps on these 
continuing contracts.
  The problem is that the corps has done a lot of reprogrammings. They 
have moved funds around. We believe this is a case management problem. 
We have taken extensive efforts to try to reform this program because 
we think that they may not have the money to restore what they should, 
and if there is a big plume in all of this, that they cannot really 
tell us what it is all about.
  Another area that we have a problem with is in the continuing-
contract area. Some people would like to get rid of continuing 
contracts. I do not happen to believe that. I think it is a tool that 
they need, but we need to make sure that they are not using them to 
excess and they are not using them to do things that either the 
administration did not want to fund, we did not want to fund, or the 
Senate did not want to fund; and that this money is not being shifted 
around or execution is being done that would inhibit our ability in 
future years to fund programs by the original funding by the corps.
  The Department of Energy received a total of $24.318 billion in the 
Energy and Water bill. That is an increase of $105 million over the 
budget request, about $101 million less than the fiscal year 2005 
level. As with the corps, we asked the Department of Energy to begin 
preparing 5-year budget plans,

[[Page 10970]]

first for individual programs and then an integrated plan for the 
Department. I think this is just good money management within these 
Departments. We need 5-year plans. We actually need longer visions in 
these programs so that we know what we are going to end up with in the 
waterways in the future and we know what the Department of Energy's 
plans are in the future.
  The committee has several important new initiatives for the 
Department of Energy. DOE presently has significant quantities of 
weapons-usable special nuclear materials, plutonium and highly enriched 
uranium, scattered around its complexes. Unfortunately, even with the 
heightened attention to homeland security after the 9/11 attacks, the 
Department has done little to consolidate these high-risk materials. We 
have provided additional funds for material consolidation initiative 
and direct DOE to take aggressive action to consolidate its weapons-
usable uranium and plutonium into fewer, more secure sites.
  We think this is not only a security problem, but it costs us a lot 
of money and we think we can do better.
  We also propose a spent fuel recycling initiative to stimulate some 
fresh thinking on how this country deals with its spent nuclear fuel. I 
want to state that I fully support the Yucca Mountain Repository, and 
our bill fully funds the request for Yucca Mountain in fiscal year 
2006. It is critical that we get Yucca Mountain done and done right and 
done soon. However, we continue to be frustrated by the delays in 
getting the repository open, and we are concerned about what will 
happen after that first repository is built.
  The Department of Energy estimates that each year of delay on Yucca 
Mountain costs the government an additional billion dollars, half from 
the legal liability for DOE's failure to begin accepting commercial 
spent fuel beginning in 1988, as required by the law, and the other 
half from the costs. In addition, the authorized capacity of Yucca 
Mountain will be fully utilized by the year 2010 with no place to 
dispose of spent fuel generated after that date.
  It is time to rethink our approach on spent fuel. We need to start 
moving spent fuel away from reactor sites to one or more centralized, 
above-ground interim storage facilities located at DOE sites. If we 
want to build a new generation of nuclear power reactors in this 
country, we have got to demonstrate to investors and the public that 
the Federal Government will live up to its responsibilities under the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act and to take title to commercial spent fuel.

                              {time}  1130

  I would note that we are already storing foreign reactor fuel on DOE 
sites. It is time we do the same for our domestic spent fuel. This may 
help to limit the billions of dollars of legal liability facing the 
Federal Government for its failure to accept commercial spent fuel for 
disposal.
  It is also time to think about our reluctance to reprocess spent 
fuel. The Europeans are doing this very successfully, and there are 
some advanced reprocessing technologies in the research and development 
phase that promise to reduce or eliminate some of the disadvantages of 
the current chemical process.
  We add funds to the Nuclear Waste Disposal account and direct the 
Secretary to begin accepting commercial spent fuel in fiscal year 2006 
for interim storage at one or more DOE sites. We also include 
additional funds and direction within the Nuclear Energy account for 
the Secretary to select an advanced reprocessing technology in fiscal 
year 2007 and to establish a competitive process to select one or more 
sites for an advanced fuel recycling facility.
  Lastly, the committee recommends a new Sustainable Stockpile 
Initiative to ensure the future of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. The 
committee provides additional funds for the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead that we initiated in last year's conference report. We placed 
the Reliable Replacement Warhead in the context of a larger Sustainable 
Stockpile Initiative, which we view as a package deal with several key 
components.
  First, the Reliable Replacement Warhead is a program to reengineer 
existing warheads to be safer, more secure, cheaper to maintain, easier 
to dismantle and, more importantly, easier to certify without 
underground testing.
  Secondly, we propose a modest slowdown of Life Extension work on the 
old warheads in preparation for a shift to the newer replacement 
warheads. This is coupled with a significant increase in dismantlement 
rates to bring down the stockpile to match the President's decision 
about the size of the stockpile by the year 2012. Frankly, in the long 
run, I am hopeful the Secretary's task force on the Nuclear Weapons 
Complex will propose some sensible steps to modernize the DOE Weapons 
Complex and bring it into line with these coming changes in the size 
and composition of the stockpile.
  The committee provided for an aggressive nuclear nonproliferation 
program within the National Nuclear Security Administration. We 
provided an additional $65 million to keep the plutonium producing 
reactor shutdown program with the Russians on track to have all three 
reactors closed by 2011. The committee also provided $85 million 
additional for the Russian material protection program to secure 
nuclear materials overseas.
  We made a significant reduction to the domestic MOX plant because of 
the large unexpended prior-year balances in that project, caused by the 
continued liability dispute with the Russians. Given the constrained 
budget environment, the committee cannot continue to appropriate 
hundreds of millions of dollars for a construction project that has 
been delayed for 3 years.
  I believe this is a responsible bill that makes sound investment 
decisions for the future of our agencies. Members will not receive as 
many water and energy projects as they may have liked, but we did take 
care of their top priorities. Hopefully, we did that everywhere.
  I want to thank all the Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development, and Related Agencies for helping to bring this bill 
to the floor today. I especially want to thank my ranking member, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for his extraordinary 
cooperation this past year. In my opinion, this is truly a bipartisan 
bill that represents a hard-fought but ultimately fair and balanced 
compromise. This is the way I believe our constituents expect their 
Representatives to work together.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their support and 
for allowing us to move this bill forward in such an expeditious 
manner.
  Lastly, I want to thank the staff of the committee: Kevin Cook, our 
clerk; John Blazey, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, and Tracy 
LaTurner for their work on this bill. I also want to thank Dixon Butler 
of the minority staff and Kenny Kraft, from my office, and Peder 
Moorbjerg from the Visclosky office.
  I want to especially acknowledge our agency's detailees, Taunja 
Berquam and Felicia Kirksey, for their invaluable assistance in putting 
this bill and report together.
  It is a shared bill. We all work together and talk to each other, and 
I want to thank everybody for working together to get this bill this 
far.
   Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to submit to the House for its 
consideration H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2006. The Appropriations Committee 
approved this bill unanimously on May 18, and I believe this is a good 
bill that merits the support of the entire House.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide range of 
Federal programs, including such diverse matters as flood control, 
navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste 
disposal, advanced scientific research, applied energy research, 
maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation. 
Total funding for energy and water development in fiscal year 2006 is 
$29.746 billion. This funding amount represents a decrease of $728,000 
below the

[[Page 10971]]

budget request and $86.3 million below the current fiscal year. This 
bill is right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, and provides 
adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House.
  Title I of the bill provides funding for the Civil Works program of 
the Army Corps of Engineers, the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 
Action Program, which is executed by the corps, and the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The committee 
recommends a total of $4.746 billion for title I activities, $294 
million below the current year and $414 million above the budget 
request.
  For a number of years, the Corps Civil Works program has been 
oversubscribed, where Congress kept giving the corps more and more 
projects to do, but not enough money to do them all. We took steps last 
year to put the corps on the road to fiscal recovery, by limiting the 
number of new starts and concentrating resources on the completion of 
ongoing construction projects. We also asked the Office of Management 
and Budget to adopt a new approach to future corps budget requests, so 
that we can use our limited resources to complete the most valuable 
projects efficiently, instead of spreading those resources very widely 
to make incremental progress across a large number of projects.
  The fiscal year 2006 budget request adopts such a performance-based 
approach for the corps budget, proposing to use the ratio of remaining 
costs-to-remaining benefits as the primary determinant of which 
construction projects should receive priority consideration for 
funding. While this ratio may not be the perfect measure of merit for 
all projects, the budget request represents a good-faith effort from 
the Office of Management and Budget to concentrate the corps' limited 
resources on finishing the most worthwhile projects that are already 
under construction. Until we begin to clear out the enormous backlog of 
ongoing work, we are very reluctant to add new projects to the 
pipeline. Therefore, we did not include any new starts or new project 
authorizations for the corps in this House bill.
  One consequence of adopting this new performance-based approach to 
the corps budget is that the funds available for Member adds for corps 
projects are very limited. In part, this is because, for the first time 
in years, we received a budget request in which many congressional 
priorities are already funded at a reasonable level. However, even with 
that request as a good starting point, the total amount that we can 
provide for the corps is less than what the House passed in fiscal year 
2005. With a healthy base request and a lean 302(b) allocation, we did 
not add as much for Member projects as we have in previous years. We 
were harsh but fair in how we dealt with these Member requests.
  Our fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water bill makes major strides toward 
improving the corps' project execution, reprogrammings, and continuing 
contracts. Let me talk for a moment about these interrelated issues. 
For a workload of approximately 2,000 projects, the Chief of Engineers 
recently told me that the corps does about 20,000 reprogrammings each 
year. We have GAO reviewing the corps reprogrammings, and they tell us 
that the corps has reprogrammed funds for amounts as small as 6 cents. 
This is not sound financial management, and suggests that the corps is 
more focused on moving money around frequently to meet the corps' 
determination of project needs, irrespective of the allocations 
provided in annual appropriations. Instead, the corps should be 
managing its workload within the project allocations provided by 
Congress. Much of this problem is driven by the corps' misplaced 
emphasis on expending 99 percent of their funding every year, and they 
move money around freely between projects to meet that goal. We take 
steps to tighten up the reprogramming guidelines and to limit the 
corps' ability to make such frequent funding shifts. We expect the 
corps to execute the program that Congress gives them, not simply take 
the funds that Congress appropriates and then shuffle the money around 
to the corps' own priorities.
  Continuing contracts are a related problem. Under this mechanism, the 
corps can obligate the Federal Government for funding future fiscal 
years. In some cases, the corps is awarding continuing contracts for 
projects that received no appropriation in fiscal year 2005, or have 
not been included at all in the budget request for fiscal year 2006. 
Also, the corps uses accelerated earnings on continuing contracts to 
pay its contractors more than is appropriated for a project in the 
current fiscal year. In part, these accelerated earnings on continuing 
contracts are one of the drivers for the corps extensive 
reprogrammings, and also one of the mechanisms the corps uses in its 
pursuit of the 99 percent expenditure goal. This practice has to stop, 
and we include language limiting the corps' ability to obligate the 
government in excess of appropriations.
  The Department of Energy receives a total of $24.318 billion in the 
Energy and Water Development bill, an increase of $105 million over the 
budget request but $101 million less than the fiscal year 2005 level. 
As with the corps, we task the Department of Energy to begin preparing 
5-year budget plans, first for individual programs and then an 
integrated plan for the entire Department. This plan must include 
business plans for each of the DOE laboratories, so we understand the 
mission and resource needs of each laboratory.
  The committee includes several important new initiatives for the 
Department of Energy. DOE presently has significant quantities of 
weapons-usable special nuclear materials, plutonium and highly enriched 
uranium, scattered around the complex. Unfortunately, even with the 
heightened attention to homeland security after the 9-11 attacks, the 
Department has done little to consolidate these high-risk materials. We 
provide additional funds for a Material Consolidation Initiative and 
direct DOE to take aggressive action to consolidate its weapons-usable 
uranium and plutonium into fewer, more secure sites.
  We also propose a Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative to stimulate some 
fresh thinking on how this country deals with its spent nuclear fuel. I 
continue to support the Yucca Mountain repository, and our bill fully 
funds the request for Yucca Mountain in fiscal year 2006. It is 
critical that we get Yucca done right, and done soon. However, we 
continue to be frustrated by the delays in getting that repository 
open, and we are concerned about what happens after that first 
repository is built. The Department of Energy estimates that each year 
of delay on Yucca Mountain costs the government an additional $1 
billion, half from the legal liability for DOE's failure to begin 
accepting commercial spent fuel beginning in 1998, as is required by 
law, and the other half from the costs. In addition, the authorized 
capacity of Yucca Mountain will be fully utilized by the year 2010, 
with no place to dispose of spent fuel generated after that date. It is 
time to rethink our approach to dealing with spent fuel. We need to 
start moving spent fuel away from reactor sites to one or more 
centralized, above-ground interim storage facilities located at DOE 
sites. If we want to build a new generation of nuclear reactors in this 
country, we need to demonstrate to investors and the public that the 
Federal Government will live up to its responsibilities under the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act to take title to commercial spent nuclear 
fuel. I would note that we are already storing foreign reactor fuel on 
DOE sites--it is time we do the same for our domestic spent fuel. This 
may help to limit the billions of dollars of legal liability facing the 
Federal Government for its failure to accept commercial spent fuel for 
disposal.
  It is also time that we think again about our reluctance to reprocess 
spent fuel. The Europeans are doing this successfully, and there are 
some advanced reprocessing technologies in the research and development 
phase that promise to reduce or eliminate some of the disadvantages of 
the current chemical processes. We add funds to the Nuclear Waste 
Disposal account and direct the Secretary to begin accepting commercial 
spent fuel in fiscal year 2006 for interim storage at one or more DOE 
sites. We also include additional funds and direction within the 
Nuclear Energy account for the Secretary to select an advanced 
reprocessing technology in fiscal year 2007 and to establish a 
competitive process to select one or more sites for an advanced fuel 
recycling facility.
  Lastly, the committee recommends a new Sustainable Stockpile 
Initiative to ensure the future of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. The 
committee provides additional funds for the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead, which we initiated in last year's conference report. We place 
the Reliable Replacement Warhead in the context of the larger 
Sustainable Stockpile Initiative, which we view as a package deal with 
several key elements. First, the Reliable Replacement Warhead is a 
program to re-engineer existing warheads to be safer, more secure, 
cheaper to maintain, easier to dismantle, and most importantly, easier 
to certify without underground nuclear testing. Second, we propose a 
modest slow-down of Life Extension work on the old warheads in 
preparation for a shift to the newer Replacement Warheads. This is 
coupled with a significant increase in dismantlement rates to bring 
down the stockpile to match the President's decision about the size of 
the stockpile by the year 2012. In the long run, I am hopeful that the 
Secretary's Task Force on the Nuclear Weapons Complex will propose some 
sensible steps to modernize the DOE weapons complex and bring it into 
line with these coming changes to the size and composition of the 
stockpile.

[[Page 10972]]

  The committee provided for an aggressive nuclear nonproliferation 
program within the National Nuclear Security Administration. We 
provided an additional $65 million to keep the plutonium producing 
reactor shutdown program with the Russians on track to have all three 
reactors closed by 2011. The committee also provided $85 million 
additional for the Russian material protection program to secure 
nuclear material overseas. We made a significant reduction to the 
domestic MOX plant because of the large unexpended prior year balances 
in that project caused by the continued liability dispute with the 
Russians. Given the constrained budget environment, the committee 
cannot continue to appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars for a 
construction project that been delayed for 3 years.
  I believe this is a responsible bill that makes sound investment 
decisions for the future of our agencies. Members will not receive as 
many water or energy projects as they might like, but we did take care 
of their top priorities.
  I want to thank all the members of the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. I 
especially want to thank my Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky of Indiana, 
for his extraordinary cooperation this past year. This is truly a 
bipartisan bill that represents a hard-fought but ultimately fair and 
balanced compromise. This is why I believe our constituents expect 
their representatives to work together. I also want to thank the 
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis, and the Ranking 
Minority Member, Mr. Obey, for their support and for allowing us to 
move this bill forward in an expeditious manner.
  Lastly, I would like to thank the staff of the Subcommittee--Kevin 
Cook, John Blazey, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowki, and Tracey 
LaTurner--for their hard work on this bill. I also want to thank Dixon 
Butler of the minority staff, and both Kenny Kraft from my office and 
Peder Maarbjerg of Mr. Visclosky's office. I especially want to 
acknowledge our agency detailees, Taunja Berquam and Felicia Kirksey, 
for their invaluable assistance in putting this bill and report 
together.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I want to pick up where my chairman, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hobson), left off and also personally thank the staff, 
because without their able assistance, we would not be here today and 
the product before this Chamber would not be of the quality that it is.
  So I do want to personally thank Terry Tyborowski and Tracy LaTurner 
of the majority staff, as well as John Blazey, Scott Burnison, and 
Kevin Cook. On the minority side, although again, as the chairman 
pointed out, this was a bipartisan effort, Dixon Butler.
  We have core detailees: Felicia Kirksey and Taunja Berquam, and I 
appreciate very much their help, as well as Kenny Kraft from the 
Chairman's office, and Peder Moorbjerg from mine.
  Mr. Chairman, I would want to thank Chairman Hobson, first of all, 
for his very good work; as I mentioned in subcommittee and full 
committee, his fairness, his judicious temperament, the fact that he is 
a gentleman, and also that he has exercised a great deal of foresight 
and leadership over the last 3 years as chairman of the subcommittee.
  I certainly feel that the chairman has outlined the elements of the 
value of the legislation before us very fairly. I would prefer to take 
somewhat of a different tack, this being my seventh bill as a ranking 
member, and illustratively point out the three areas of the bill where 
over the last 3 years the chairman has had a direction, he has 
exercised leadership and courage, and has provided us with an excellent 
work product.
  The first area is the area of high-performance computing, an area 
where the United States invented the field and long held undisputed 
leadership in the world. Several years ago, however, that leadership 
was challenged. In the House bill for fiscal year 2004, the committee 
recommended an increase in funding to enable the Department of Energy 
to acquire additional advanced computing capability and to initiate 
longer-term research and development. The Department used $25 million 
of these funds to engage a team, including Oak Ridge National Lab and 
Cray Computer, to pursue a leadership-class supercomputer and the next-
generation computer architectures.
  Despite being faced with budget constraints, the Department of Energy 
Office of Science sustained this increase in 2005. However, pursuing a 
$100 million-plus leadership-class machine with level funding was not 
going to put us back in the lead. So, once again, the committee 
recommended an increase to the request to support the Office of Science 
initiative to develop the hardware, software, and applied mathematics 
necessary for a leadership-class supercomputer to meet scientific 
computational needs.
  This year, the President's request for fiscal year 2006 pulled back 
from the strong support favored by the Congress, and such a cutback 
would tend to undermine the progress towards actually achieving a 
leadership-class U.S. supercomputer. So the recommendation before us 
today increases funding for advanced scientific computing research by 
$39 million: $25 million for hardware, $5 million for computational 
research, and $9 million for competitive university grants to restore 
the ongoing level of core research in this area that the President's 
budget recommendation cut.
  By taking the long-term perspective of the last 3 years and 
sustaining support for a highly desirable outcome, the chairman and the 
committee and all of its members are doing their part to ensure that 
the U.S. reasserts its technological leadership.
  The second area that has been a subject of concern for a number of 
years, in an area where we reduced funding, is Laboratory Directed 
Research and Development. It is an area that grew out of all proportion 
to its value at the beginning of this decade. This area also raised 
concerns of financial oversight and the use of Federal funds for 
purposes for which it was not appropriated.
  As an initial effort to get its arms around this program, which 
reached an aggregate funding level in fiscal year 2003 of $365 million, 
the committee mandated a comprehensive report on projects from the 
Department of Energy and initiated a GAO investigation. In developing 
recommendations for last year's bill, the committee based its guidance 
and statement of concerns on the results of those investigations and 
reports.
  This year, the President's budget, recognizing the concerns of the 
committee and the constraints on funding, reduced the percentage 
allowed for lab-directed research at weapons labs from 6 percent to 5 
percent. The committee today is recommending that lab-directed research 
be limited explicitly to $250 million for 2006, to be allocated to the 
labs by the Department of Energy. A quarter billion dollars is a 
healthy level of funding that could be used to fix many problems in 
energy research and water infrastructure, to name but two.
  As we state in the report, the committee recognizes the value of 
conducting discretionary research at the national laboratories, but we 
have now brought the funding level to this research back within reason 
and given it a sense of direction.
  And my last illustration, if you would, of a sense of direction that 
we have had over the last 3 years is in the area of nuclear weapons. It 
is the most sensitive area of activities under the Energy and Water 
Development appropriations.
  Here, under Chairman Hobson's courageous leadership, denial of 
funding has been effectively used to chart a safer and more efficient 
course for the future of our nuclear deterrents. In particular, coming 
into fiscal year 2004 appropriations, the President was asking for 
funds for a robust nuclear earth penetrator, for studies of new nuclear 
weapons potentially for new missions, for funds to proceed with the 
preparation of a modern pit facility to manufacture 450 plutonium 
triggers, and a shift to an 18-month readiness posture for a return to 
underground nuclear testing. Taken together, these policy initiatives 
signaled a shift in nuclear weapons policy.
  In 2004, the committee, among other things, reduced funding for the 
robust nuclear earth penetrator to $5 million from $15 million, 
ultimately agreeing to $7.5 million in conference; zeroed out

[[Page 10973]]

funds for proceeding with the modern pit facility; and held the test 
readiness posture at 24 months.
  Most significantly, in 2004, $4 million of the funds for advanced 
weapons concepts were fenced so that they could not be spent until the 
administration delivered a nuclear weapons stockpile plan. Without this 
action, there is no doubt that the plan would not exist. Today, it 
does.
  In fiscal year 2005, the committee went further and zeroed funding 
for the earth penetrator, while maintaining a 24-month test readiness 
posture.
  The committee has taken a constructive approach in trying to 
positively influence better policies. At the insistence of the 
committee, reasonable new approaches have been funded, including a 
reliable replacement warhead. In this year's bill, the committee is 
solidifying the progress made last year and in the previous year.
  First, advanced concepts was missing from the President's request and 
is essentially no longer under consideration. Secondly, the earth 
penetrator funding is again zero in the committee recommendation, and 
third, test readiness posture is held to 24 months. Finally, the 
reliable replacement warhead concept was included in the President's 
request. The committee is working to accelerate the implicit 
transformation of the newest nuclear deterrent stockpile by increasing 
funds to $25 million, while slowing programs extending the life of old 
weapons.
  Essentially, in this bill as well, Mr. Chairman, we are taking an 
advanced look. We have called for the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Bureau of Reclamation, as well as the Department of Energy to undertake 
5-year plans in programs.
  This is an exceptional piece of legislation, and I would ask my 
colleagues to support it.
  I recommend that all members join me in supporting this bill. Its 
preparation has been bipartisan and the Chairman has been fair 
throughout its preparation. I would add my appreciation to the staff 
led on the majority side by Kevin Cook. He is joined by Terry 
Tyborowski, John Blazey, Scott Burnison, and Tracy LaTurner. They are a 
strong team. On the minority staff, I would thank Dixon Butler. This 
year we have two fine detailees from the Army Corps: Taunja Berquam 
helping the majority and Felicia Kirksey helping the minority. I would 
also thank Kenny Kraft on Chairman Hobson's staff and Peder Maarbjerg 
on my staff.
  This is my seventh year as ranking member on the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Subcommittee. In a few professions in our 
society seventh years are sabbaticals and times for reflection. In the 
Congress, we can't take a year off, but I feel compelled to reflect. 
During my years on this Committee it has been my privilege to serve 
with five subcommittee chairmen, and now, it has been my pleasure to 
serve with Dave Hobson for three years. During this time, Chairman 
Hobson has led our subcommittee to take a long-term perspective on a 
number of important issues and this is resulting in some profound and 
positive changes. Here are three examples.
  High Performance Computing is an area where the United States 
invented the field and long held undisputed leadership in the world. 
Several years ago, that leadership was challenged by Japan with their 
development of the Earth Simulator. In the House bill for FY 2004, the 
Committee recommended an increase of $40 million to enable DOE to 
``acquire additional advanced computing capability . . . and to 
initiate longer-term research and development on next generation 
computer architectures.'' Ultimately, $30 million of this increase was 
included in the final conference report. The Department used $25 
million of these funds to engage a team including Oak Ridge National 
Lab and Cray Computer to pursue a leadership-class super computer and 
next generation computer architectures.
  Despite being faced with budget constraints, the DOE Office of 
Science sustained this increase in the President's FY 2005 budget. 
However, pursuing a $100 million plus leadership-class machine with 
level funding of $25 million per year will never put the United States 
back in the lead. So once again, the Committee recommended an increase 
of $30 million to the request ``to support the Office of Science 
initiative to develop the hardware, software, and applied mathematics 
necessary for a leadership-class supercomputer to meet scientific 
computation needs.'' It must be noted that the Committee insisted that 
at least $5 million of this increase be reserved for computational 
research and not allow additional funds to go to hardware alone.
  In the face of an even more constrained funding environment, the 
President's request for FY 2006 pulled back from the strong support 
favored by the Congress. Such a cutback, if sustained, would tend to 
undermine the progress toward actually achieving a leadership-class US 
supercomputer. So, the recommendation before us today increases funding 
for advanced scientific computing research by $39 million--$25 million 
for hardware, $5 million for computational research, and $9 million for 
competitive university grants to restore the on-going level of core 
research in this area that the President's budget recommended for cuts. 
By taking the long-term perspective and sustaining support for a highly 
desirable outcome, the Committee is doing its part to ensure that the 
U.S. reasserts it technological leadership in the area of 
supercomputing--a technical capability that underpins our ability to 
invent the future.
  Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) is an area that 
grew out of all proportion to its value at the beginning of this 
decade. This area also raised concerns of financial oversight and the 
use of federal funds for purposes for which it was not appropriated. As 
an initial effort to get its arms around this program, which reached an 
aggregate funding level in FY 2003 of $365 million per year, the 
Committee mandated a comprehensive report on LDRD projects from DOE and 
initiated a GAO investigation of LDRD. In developing its 
recommendations for FY 2005, the Committee based its guidance and 
statement of concerns on the results of the GAO investigation and what 
had been learned from reviewing the extensive DOE reports. The FY 2005 
Committee report directs DOE to shift to direct requests for LDRD.
  The President's budget request for FY 2006, recognizing the concerns 
of the Committee and the constraints on funding, reduced the percentage 
allowed for LDRD at Weapons Labs from 6% to 5%. The Committee is today 
recommending that LDRD be limited explicitly to $250 million in FY 
2006, to be allocated to the labs by DOE. A quarter billion dollars is 
a healthy level of funding that could be used to fix many problems in 
energy research, water infrastructure, etc., so the ``Committee [truly] 
recognizes the value of conducting discretionary research at DOE's 
national laboratories'', but has now brought the funding level for this 
research back within reason and given it a sense of direction.
  Nuclear Weapons is the most sensitive area of activity under the 
Energy and Water Development appropriation. Here, under Chairman 
Hobson's courageous leadership, the denial of funding has been 
effectively used to chart a safer and more efficient course for the 
future of our nuclear deterrent. In particular, coming into the FY 2004 
appropriations process, the President was asking for funds for a robust 
nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP), for studies of new nuclear weapons 
potentially for new missions, for funds to proceed with preparation of 
a Modern Pit Facility to manufacture 450 plutonium triggers per year, 
and a shift to an I8-month readiness posture for a return to 
underground nuclear testing. Taken together, these policy initiatives 
signaled an alarming shift in nuclear weapons policy and accordingly, 
many here and abroad reacted with alarm. Each of these policies was a 
bad idea, an idea run amok. This situation developed in part because of 
the absence of an approved nuclear weapons stockpile plan.
  The House report accompanying the FY 2004 Energy and Water 
Appropriations Bill states, ``The fiscal year 2004 budget request is 
the second budget request delivered to the Committee that is loosely 
justified on the requirements of the Nuclear Posture Review policy 
document but lacking a formal plan that specifies the changes to the 
stockpile reflecting the President's decision [on the Nuclear Weapons 
Stockpile Plan].'' The Committee reduced funding for the RNEP to $5 
million from $15 million (ultimately agreeing to $7.5 million in 
conference), zeroed funds for proceeding with a Modern Pit Facility, 
and held the test readiness posture at 24 months. Most significantly, 
$4 million of the funds for advanced weapons concepts were fenced so 
that they could not be spent until the Administration delivered a 
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan. Without this action, there is doubt 
that this Plan would yet exist.
  In FY 2005, the Committee went further and zeroed funding for the 
RNEP while maintaining the 24-month test readiness posture and 
continuing to defer the Modern Pit Facility. But, the Committee is a 
constructive influence and seeks to support better policies. At the 
insistence of the Committee, the dangerous advanced concepts approach 
was scrapped and a reasonable new approach was funded--the reliable 
replacement warhead (RRW).

[[Page 10974]]

  In FY2006, the Committee is solidifying the progress made last year. 
First, advanced concepts was missing from the President's request and 
is essentially no longer under consideration. Second, RNEP funding is 
again zero in the Committee's recommendation. Third, test readiness 
posture is held to 24 months. Fourth, the RRW concept was included in 
the President's request. The Committee is working to accelerate the 
implicit transformation of the U.S. nuclear deterrent stockpile by 
increasing funds to $25 million while slowing programs extending the 
life of old weapons. The promise of the RRW is that the U.S. will never 
need to resume nuclear weapons testing and will be able to sustain our 
deterrent with a smaller, less-expensive complex.
  In light of these examples where taking a longer-term perspective is 
showing results, I fully support the efforts in this FY2006 Energy and 
Water Development Appropriation to get all three principal agencies 
funded in this bill to adopt and communicate 5-year plans for their 
programs. Further, we have long under-invested in the water 
infrastructure of our nation, and although this year is no exception, 
the bill undertakes significant efforts to help the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers get effective control over management, particularly fiscal 
management of projects. Management improvements prepare the way for the 
most effective use of whatever level of funding can be supplied in the 
future. Concentrating funding on high-priority water projects to get 
them done should significantly improve the overall benefits of 
investment through the Corps and Bureau of Reclamation, and so, I 
support this painful approach as well.
  The Chairman and I are taking steps to involve all members of the 
Subcommittee in the oversight of the programs we fund. Everyone is 
being asked to concentrate on two subsets of our work. This also takes 
the long-term perspective as it will prepare our capable colleagues for 
future roles as chairs and rankings of appropriations subcommittees 
while strengthening our current work as appropriators.
  So, upon reflection, I am pleased with the positive effects of the 
last three years of Energy and Water Development Appropriations bills. 
Far more has been accomplished than the simple funding of government 
programs and the accommodation of congressional priorities. The nation 
and the world are better and safer as a result. What a privilege and 
pleasure to participate!
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill. First, let me thank and commend Chairman Hobson 
and Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work in crafting a bill 
that addresses so many complex national energy and water infrastructure 
needs. They make a good team.
  Our bill includes essential funding for energy programs that seek to 
make our country more efficient and less dependent on traditional 
fossil fuels and foreign oil. As a nation, we are facing an energy 
crisis which does not allow us to put off significant policy changes as 
to how we can invest our energy infrastructure dollars any longer.
  This year, we have made a significant investment in nuclear energy 
technology. This energy provides a clean, renewable energy source 
already capable of providing an alternative source of electricity to 
fossil fuels. Nuclear energy already provides 20 percent of our 
Nation's electricity and, in my home State of New Jersey, nearly 50 
percent of the electrical capacity.

                              {time}  1145

  I am also pleased that our subcommittee continues to fund fusion 
science. Our committee has been a leader in advancing fusion so that 
some day we will be able to realize the promise of the cleanest of 
energy sources. Thirty years ago the first power produced in a 
laboratory from fusion was barely enough to light a small light bulb. 
Today, our DOE labs are capable of creating enough power from fusion to 
light a small town.
  Mr. Chairman, I credit the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the 
ranking member for grappling with some tough policy decisions in this 
bill. For example, Yucca Mountain, which is facing delays, this bill 
includes money, $660 million for Yucca Mountain, in anticipation of a 
licensing agreement being signed.
  This bill also prioritizes the Army Corps' work on a number of 
essential navigation and flood control projects to ensure that such 
construction projects authorized by Congress are actually completed.
  But most importantly to me and to the New York-New Jersey region, in 
the Army Corps' portfolio, this bill reflects our committee's continued 
recognition of the value of our Federal investment in the New York-New 
Jersey harbor deepening project. This project has been recognized as 
one of five national priorities by the President. It is not only an 
issue of national security; it is an issue of economic security. The 
economic return on keeping open our Nation's third largest port to 
larger container ships is huge. I note that the Army Corps itself has 
listed this deepening project as one of its highest return investments.
  I cannot overstate the economic importance of the port which is the 
third largest in the United States. Every day thousands of goods come 
through the port of New York and New Jersey, and through its terminals 
many other goods are exported to the rest of the world. Those goods and 
the assets that protect them allow our Nation to proceed and keep its 
economy going. Therefore, I rise in support of the bill and urge other 
Members to do so as well.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as Members of this House know, when I have 
objections to the content of a bill, I am not shy in stating them. 
There are certainly portions of this bill with which I do not agree, 
but I want to say that it is very unusual and it is a very pleasant 
experience to see a piece of legislation brought to the floor which is 
not so much a product of politics as it is a product of legislative 
craftsmanship. I think that is the case with this bill.
  I think that the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Indiana 
working together in an absolutely bipartisan fashion have produced a 
bill which is obviously based on some intellectual decisions about how 
to approach problems rather than being based simply on political 
judgments, and that means that this place is performing as it should 
perform. It is not just being a political institution; it is also being 
a legislative institution. That is happening in no small measure 
because of the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
  That does not mean that I do not think this bill does not fall short 
in some areas. I think that the budget resolution has made it 
impossible for this committee to do a number of things that it ought to 
be doing in the area of energy research. Lord knows, that is important 
these days with rising gas prices and all of the rest; but I just want 
to say in my view, despite those shortcomings, this bill demonstrates 
that good government is good politics.
  The gentleman has brought to the floor a bill which is extremely 
responsible in terms of the way it deals with the nuclear weapons 
issues that were referenced by the gentleman from Indiana. It is an 
extremely bipartisan product. While I have feelings about nuclear power 
that are very different than some other Members in this Chamber, I want 
to say I think the gentleman has produced, with the assistance of the 
gentleman from Indiana, a very responsible bill; and I fully intend to 
support it.
  I hope as the process goes along we will wind up having more 
resources to deal with some of the problems that are shortchanged. But 
with that exception, I do not think we can ask for a better legislative 
product; and as someone who appreciates the traditions of this House, I 
want to extend my personal gratitude to the gentleman from Ohio for his 
contribution in making this the fine product that it is.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his 
kind comments. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is the scholar 
of the

[[Page 10975]]

House. He reads these things and understands them, and I very much 
appreciate his remarks on the bill on behalf of both myself and the 
ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to make some brief comments and then engage in some 
colloquy with the chairman.
  Not to repeat anything that has been already said, but just to 
highlight why I can believe this is such an excellent work product, 
really three reasons: one, this chairman over the last 2\1/2\ years has 
gone out into the country, both on the water side and on the energy 
side, gone into the depths of very complex places like our nuclear 
weapons complex, gone into our scientific research institutions, energy 
research, gone and seen demonstrations and the advancement of 
technology, and tried hard to understand what needs to be proposed. 
This chairman deserves tremendous credit. At no time in my 9 years on 
the Committee on Appropriations have I seen this kind of diligence that 
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) has shown.
  Secondly, it has been very fair and very bipartisan all along the 
way.
  Third, this is one of the greatest assimilations of professional 
staff on both sides of the aisle, people with expertise and experience 
coming to the same subcommittee at the same time at a very important 
time. My hat is off to all of these individuals for their diligence.
  Mr. Chairman, if I may engage in a colloquy, I would like to say a 
few words on the importance of fielding a leadership-class computer for 
open science. For the past 2 years under your leadership, this 
subcommittee has provided additional funds to achieve this goal, and I 
thank you for this commitment. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory and 
its partners were competitively selected to carry out this effort. With 
the additional funds provided by this bill, they will continue down 
that path. The $25 million for hardware will enable the Center For 
Computational Science at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to upgrade 
the existing system to 50 teraflops. This will get us halfway to the 
goal of a leadership-class computer which is a 100 teraflop system. The 
remaining funds will help support the operations and software.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's support of this 
important program, and I share his goal in this field. I am 
disappointed that the Department's fiscal year 2006 budget request did 
not preserve the increases that this subcommittee provided for this 
purpose during the past 2 fiscal years. Because of the Department's 
disregard for congressional intent, the committee provides $30 million 
of the increase for the Center of Competition Science at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory which was selected competitively to build this 
leadership-class supercomputer.
  The committee expects the Department to make full use of this 
laboratory industry capability. Finally, I agree with the gentleman of 
the importance of this effort and encourage the Department of Energy to 
make the necessary budget requests in the future to continue this very 
important effort.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. In the subcommittee 
bill in the area of fusion energy sciences, the subcommittee offered a 
very reasonable approach to funding fusion science, given the 
uncertainty surrounding the thermonuclear experimental reactor 
equipment. As the subcommittee report notes: ``If the United States 
expects to be a serious contributor to international fusion research in 
general, and ITER in particular, the Nation needs to maintain strong 
domestic research programs and user facilities to train the next 
generation of fusion scientists and engineers.''
  I think that is exactly right, and I want to commend the gentleman 
and subcommittee staff for putting that strong statement in our report.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight one area in particular that we fund 
and ask for the gentleman from Ohio's comments. Our bill provides $5.1 
million for ``compact stellarators and small-scale experiments.'' I 
understand that to be a reference to experiments such as the quasi-
polloidal stellarator, or QPS, that is being developed by the Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Ohio, is my understanding 
correct?
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
the gentleman's understanding is correct.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time, and I commend him and the chairman of the subcommittee for 
producing a very good appropriation bill. I echo the sentiments that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just gave on the floor and 
appreciate the hard work that has gone into it.
  I think the rule, however, could have been a little stronger if the 
Schwartz amendment would have been made in order so we could have had 
further discussion about the need for increased investment in 
alternative and renewable energy technologies. I do not think that the 
energy bill that is working its way through Congress goes far enough, 
and this was another appropriation measure that could have been a 
vehicle for that increased investment.
  I do appreciate the work that is being done on the Yucca Mountain 
funding, however. We have two nuclear facilities that are storing a lot 
of nuclear waste in the upper Mississippi River region right now. Many 
of us feel it makes sense to have a single, isolated nuclear waste 
repository in this country, and the studies that have gone into Yucca 
Mountain and the funding that this committee is providing, it seems to 
me to be a reasonable and practical approach dealing with the nuclear 
waste issue.
  I especially want to commend the committee for the full support they 
have given to a very important program for the upper Mississippi River 
basin, the Environmental Management Program. This was a program that 
was created in the mid-1980s to strike balance on the multiple uses of 
the Mississippi region in the upper States. It is a multiple-use 
resource. It is incredibly valuable economically, quality of life, 
recreation and tourism. We have commercial navigation that uses the 
upper Mississippi along with the important recreation and tourism 
aspect, and the Environmental Management Program really has a twofold 
mission. One is habitat restoration for the upper Mississippi basin and 
the other is long term resource monitoring, to monitor the effects that 
sediment and nutrients are having in the basin.
  One of the first things I did as a new Member of Congress was help 
form a bipartisan Mississippi River Caucus so we could work together 
from both the North and the South in order to draw attention to the 
resources that are needed along the Mississippi River.
  We have made substantial progress, and I commend the committee's 
recognition that full funding of the EMP is appropriate at $33 million. 
This is a program that has received wide bipartisan support, multi-
state support. The five upper States of the Mississippi River basin 
have been fully supportive of this program, as have the Governors and 
the respective legislatures, and I commend the administration who has 
consistently submitted their budget requests calling for full funding 
of the Environmental Management Program.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would commend to my colleagues and include 
for the Record an article that just appeared in the Washington Post 
Sunday edition under the Travel section called ``Lolling on the 
River.'' It describes the quality of life and unique beauty that the 
upper Mississippi River basin has for all of us in that region.
  In it the author of the article, Bill O'Brian writes: ``The 
Mississippi, the river of Mark Twain, who once wrote, `It is not a 
commonplace river, but on the contrary is in all ways remarkable.' The 
river of LaSalle, Marquette

[[Page 10976]]

and Joliet, of B.B. King, Bob Dylan and the Doobie Brothers. Of 
Faulkner, Fitzgerald and T.S. Eliot. Of historian Stephen Ambrose who 
not long ago wrote, `The river is in my blood. Wherever, whenever, it 
is a source of delight. More, it is the river that draws us together as 
a Nation.'''
  EMP is a small part of the importance of this great natural resource 
which is of vital importance to our Nation. I commend the subcommittee 
and work they have done in recognizing by fully funding EMP the 
importance of this vital natural resource.

                [From the Washington Post, May 22, 2005]

     Lolling on the River: Following the Upper Mississippi by Land

                           (By Bill O'Brian)

       If you think the prairie of Wisconsin and Minnesota is 
     nothing but nondescript flatlands and farms, Buena Vista Park 
     in Alma, Wis., is the place for you. Specifically, the bluff 
     in the park more than 500 feet above the Mississippi River, 
     which forms the border of the two states.
       From that bluff on a clear day, you can see one of the most 
     awe-inspiring panoramas in all of North America. I've been to 
     the Grand Canyon. To Yellowstone. To Jackson Hole. To Lake 
     Louise. To Niagara Falls. To the Oregon, Maine, Carolina and 
     California coasts. To the interior of Alaska. To the top of 
     numerous skyscrapers. The vista from the bluff in Alma on a 
     clear day can compete with any of those places.
       From that precipice, you can see for miles into the 
     Minnesota countryside below. You can gaze upon the lush 
     greenery of the Dorer Memorial Hardwood State Forest and the 
     dark, rich soil of the northern portion of what schoolbooks 
     call the breadbasket of America. As the Mississippi zigzags 
     through that bottomland, you can see that the waterway is as 
     unruly as it is majestic, as undisciplined as it is immense. 
     It is clear that, left to its own devices, the river would 
     follow no laws other than those of physics, which state that 
     water flows from higher elevation to lower via the path of 
     least resistance.
       From that bluff in Alma, you can immediately understand 
     what Wisconsin outdoors journalist Mel Ellis meant half a 
     century ago when he wrote, ``If you haven't fished Ol' Man 
     Mississipp, forget about any preconceived notions you may 
     have as far as rivers are concerned. Because Ol' Man River 
     isn't a river at all. In fact, he's a hundred rivers and a 
     thousand lakes and more sloughs than you could explore in a 
     lifetime.''
       Northeasterners by birth and temperament, my wife, Sue, and 
     I knew almost nothing firsthand about life along the upper 
     Mississippi.
       The Mississippi--the river of Mark Twain, who once wrote, 
     ``It is not a commonplace river, but on the contrary is in 
     all ways remarkable,'' The river of La Salle, Marquette and 
     Joliet. Of B.B. King, Bob Dylan and the Doobie Brothers. Of 
     Faulkner, Fitzgerald and T.S. Eliot. Of historian Stephen 
     Ambrose, who not long ago wrote, ``The river is in my blood. 
     Wherever, whenever, it is a source of delight. More, it is 
     the river that draws us together as a nation.''
       So, from the point just outside East Dubuque, Ill., where 
     the Illinois-Wisconsin border meets the Mississippi about 175 
     miles west of Chicago, Sue and I had set out northward on the 
     Great River Road to see what--and whom--we might find. The 
     river road is a federally designated scenic byway that 
     stretches from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada. We covered a 
     minuscule portion of it, a couple of hundred miles mostly in 
     southwestern Wisconsin, primarily along State Route 35. We 
     had no itinerary per se. We pulled off the road when the 
     spirit, or hunger or curiosity, moved us. It was a drive-by--
     a lazy, three-day upper Mississippi River drive-by.
       On the first day, at a boat landing near the town of 
     Cassville, Wis., we stopped to chat with Dwayne Durant, a 
     fortysomething Iowan. Dressed in camouflage hunting gear, he 
     was standing on the riverbank in the Upper Mississippi River 
     National Wildlife and Fish Refuge with his dog, Sidney. 
     Durant had the satisfied countenance of a man who'd just 
     bagged his limit for the day. He welcomed us to the river, 
     patiently explained the intricacies and the appeal of duck 
     hunting, proudly showed us his fresh kill (two wood ducks, 
     two teal ducks and two mallards), then humbly thanked us for 
     visiting his corner of the world.
       The next morning, at Withey's Bar in Lynxville, Wis. (pop. 
     176), we introduced ourselves to a soft-spoken gentleman in a 
     flannel shirt sitting on a stool at the end of the bar. Les 
     Neefe told us that he was born 77 years ago in a Wisconsin 
     cheese factory (``not in a hospital, not in the hallway of 
     the cheese factory, in the cheese factory . . . in a room 
     above the boiler''). Over coffee, Neefe rhapsodized about the 
     pleasures of living in a houseboat docked on the Mississippi 
     six months a year, and he made two recommendations. First, he 
     suggested that, to get a real taste of Wisconsin, we should 
     go to the cheese shop up the road in Ferryville and buy some 
     ``sharp cheddar, old sharp cheddar.'' Then, to get a real 
     taste of river life, we should stop by P&M Concessions next 
     to Blackhawk Park in De Soto.
       We did both. The cheese, a nine-year cheddar, was rich, 
     creamy and sharper than sharp. Along with apples and 
     crackers, a block of the cheddar made a memorable watchin'-
     the-river-flow picnic lunch.
       Outside the P&M Concessions stand was a sign that read, 
     ``Welcome to the River--Sit Long, Talk Much, Fish A Lot.'' 
     Behind the counter was 34-year-old Amy Kroning, whose father 
     is the proprietor of the bait/tackle/refreshment/boat rental 
     shop.
       ``I can't think of anywhere I'd rather be than right 
     here,'' said Kroning, a mother of five who was born and 
     raised in De Soto. ``If I get more than an hour from the 
     river, I get depressed. Really. I'm not kidding. We go to a 
     Cubs game once a year [in Chicago], and I'm a nervous wreck 
     the whole time.''
       So, what is the allure of the Mississippi?
       ``It has a calming affect. It's relaxing,'' Verdetta Tusa 
     said later that day as we stood watching for more than an 
     hour while an enormous tow barge squeezed, wheezed and 
     creaked its way through the lock at the town of Genoa, Wis. 
     ``It's the history, too,'' said the 56-year-old lifelong 
     Minnesotan. ``They've been doing it this way, basically, from 
     the beginning.''
       The lock at Genoa is one of 29 on the upper Mississippi. 
     Watching tow barges come out of the sharp curves of the river 
     and negotiate the locks with pinpoint precision is a pastime 
     unto itself. Typically 15 barges are connected together in 
     front of one pilot boat. They transport grain, steel, road 
     salt, fertilizer, coal, petroleum products and other 
     nonperishable goods up and down the Mississippi most of the 
     year. It takes a barge about 10 days to get from Minneapolis 
     to St. Louis, but one 15-unit tow can carry as much grain as 
     225 rail cars or 870 semi-trucks at a fraction of the cost.
       As a barge passes through a lock, you can get close enough 
     to chat with the stevedores on board. One deckhand told us 
     that sometimes he stays out on the river for 60 to 80 days at 
     a time. And that he'd rather toil on the upper Mississippi 
     than on the lower, especially in the dead of summer, because 
     down near New Orleans and Memphis, ``it's too hot, and the 
     skeeters are bigger than I am.''
       An hour north of Genoa on State Route 35, not far past La 
     Crosse, Wis., we came to Perrot State Park, a verdant 1,400-
     acre refuge. There, an information marker on a small bluff 
     overlooking braided channels of the river reminded us just 
     how remarkable the Mississippi is. It's 2,350 miles long; 
     it's home to 100 species of fish (most notably walleye, 
     sturgeon and catfish in these parts); it drains all or part 
     of 31 states and two Canadian provinces.
       ``From Red Wing down to Iowa is the most beautiful part of 
     the river, with all the bluffs and trees. It's almost a 
     fantasyland,'' said Bob Schleicher. ``It's a place of 
     mystery. It's got so much folklore. Some of it's true; some 
     of it's not.''
       We met Schleicher, a 65-year-old retired car salesman, at 
     the municipal marina in Red Wing, Minn., the final town on 
     our river drive, directly across the bridge from Hager City, 
     Wis. Captain Bob, as he likes to call himself, told us that 
     he has navigated the Mississippi from St. Paul, Minn., to its 
     mouth in Louisiana. He explained that part of the appeal is 
     that ``you can be whoever you want to be on the river.'' He 
     told tales of river-running bootleggers, past and present. He 
     explained how the upper Mississippi differs from the lower--
     it is less crowded; it has more islands, beaches and marinas; 
     its currents are less dangerous; its water is less sandy. 
     But, he said with a smile, river people have a ``mutual bond, 
     whether you're a Confederate or a Yankee.''
       Schleicher talked for a while about the river's importance 
     to birds. Forty percent of all North American waterfowl and 
     326 bird species--including hawks, eagles, falcons, herons 
     and swans--use the river as a flyway, according to the 
     Audubon Society. We had seen a handful of bald eagles soaring 
     over or perched along the river, and Schleicher beamed as he 
     spoke of the resurgence of that ornithological American icon 
     on the bluffs near Red Wing.
       Then he suggested that, after spending a couple days 
     driving along the river, Sue and I might want to spend some 
     time on the river. For $10 apiece, he offered to take us on a 
     leisurely two-hour cruise in his old military flatboat-
     turned-riverboat.
       Once we cleared the dock, Schleicher allowed each of us in 
     the small group on board to take a turn piloting the boat for 
     a few minutes. As I stood at the helm, guiding the boat 
     around the river's trademark sweeping bends, minding the red 
     and green buoys that mark the shipping channel, passing huge 
     tow barges, I suddenly understood what Schleicher meant when 
     he said you can be who you want to be on the river.
       At that moment, as we glided past the tree-lined banks, 
     pushed along by the gentle current, the serenity was 
     overwhelming. And the history palpable. At that moment, I was 
     every riverman who's ever skippered a slow boat on Ol' Man 
     Mississipp.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham), a member of the committee.

[[Page 10977]]


  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to, first of all, express what an honor and 
privilege it is to work on a subcommittee that works in such a 
bipartisan way with the great leadership of the chairman and the 
ranking member. It is really a pleasure to actually get into policy 
discussions rather than a lot of the politics that we hear around here. 
It is very much appreciated.
  Also, the tremendous staff that we have on this subcommittee. I think 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) mentioned the great 
professionalism that they have on both sides of the aisle. It is a real 
pleasure.
  This bill is a really good bill under an allocation that could always 
be larger. We have worked out, I think, everything possible we can with 
the dollars available. I am very appreciative of the fact that we have 
focused on renewable energy, the kind of important work that we do on 
the river, on the Mississippi, and other projects that are involved 
also.
  I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member and urge 
support of this very, very good bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I feel like the skunk at the office party, 
but I rise to oppose the funding for the Yucca Mountain project 
contained in this bill. This bill shortchanges water projects and 
energy technology research and development, research into technologies 
to harness the sun and wind and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 
Yet there is 15 percent more funding for Yucca Mountain than there was 
in last year's bill despite the fact that this project is unsafe and 
riddled with problems and, in my estimation, can and never will be 
built.
  I want to update my colleagues on the recent developments regarding 
Yucca Mountain, and I sincerely hope that they listen.
  Last month, the Department of Energy revealed that scientists from 
the U.S. Geological Survey who were working on the water infiltration 
and climate studies at Yucca Mountain actually falsified documentation. 
Water infiltration and climate are two of the most fundamental factors 
involved in establishing whether or not the proposed repository can 
safely isolate radioactive waste and prevent groundwater contamination.
  In all my years fighting this project, I knew Yucca Mountain was not 
scientifically sound, but I never dreamed and never thought that 
Federal employees would purposely falsify documents to cover up the 
lack of basic science. In 90 pages of e-mails, the USGS employees 
fabricated dates and names of programs used in modeling for quality 
assurance audits and deleted information that did not fit favorable and 
hoped-for conclusions. The employees made it clear that quality 
assurance was not a priority of this project, but rather, an obstacle.
  Let me share with my colleagues some of the comments made by these 
employees, and I quote: ``Don't look at the last four lines. Those 
lines are a mystery. I've deleted the lines from the official QA 
version of the files. In the end, I keep track of two sets of files, 
the ones that will keep the QA happy and the ones that were actually 
used.''
  Another e-mail says, ``Like you said all along, the Yucca Mountain 
project has now reached a point where they need to have certain items 
work no matter what, and the infiltration maps are on that list. If 
USGS can't find a way to make it work, someone else will.''
  And finally, ``I don't have a clue when these programs were 
installed. So I've made up the dates and names. This is as good as it's 
going to get. If they need proof, I will be happy to make up more 
stuff.''
  No one better dare say to me on this floor that Yucca Mountain is 
based on sound science. It is not. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals 
ruled that the radiation standards for the proposed repository did not 
follow recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and would 
not protect the health and safety of our Nation. The difference between 
the findings and the radiation standards set by the EPA, a mere 290,000 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, the DOE has known for some time that this project was 
fatally flawed, that corners were cut, that the science did not support 
the conclusions and that the data were doctored. That the DOE continues 
to move forward with the complicity of this Congress is nothing short 
of insanity, dangerous and insane. Employees who have raised concerns 
have been intimidated into silence, and the workers were purposely 
exposed to hazardous conditions by contractors eager to win hefty cash 
bonuses. Science has been manipulated to fit predrawn conclusions, and 
public safety and the environment have been sacrificed upon the altar 
of political expediency and greed.
  Yucca Mountain is a disaster waiting to happen. When you build a weak 
foundation, your building collapses, and that is why Yucca Mountain is 
collapsing before our eyes. DOE is building Yucca on a weak foundation 
based on lies, fraud, intimidation, deception and nonexistent science. 
We should be pouring our resources into renewable energy, harnessing 
the sun, harnessing the moon, not sticking our valuable resources into 
a hole in the Nevada desert.
  If my colleagues think that nuclear waste is so safe, let them keep 
it in their own States, let them keep it in their districts, by their 
children, by their children's schools, by homes and hospitals, 
synagogues and churches; and do not travel across this country in order 
to stick it in a hole in the middle of the Nevada desert.
  I urge us to reconsider this. Let us change our direction before we 
go into something that is so disastrous and dangerous that we will 
never forgive ourselves and never be able to be forgiven by future 
generations of Americans.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle), a member of the committee.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this is a vital bill for the future of 
our country, and this bill provides a very balanced approach to 
research in the scientific areas and to energy development and, indeed, 
renewable energy as well as vital water projects and infrastructure for 
this country to keep us economically sound. I would particularly like 
to commend the chairman and the staff in working with both sides here 
on this bill. It could do more if the resources were available; but 
given that they are not, we are making the best, I think, of what we 
have.
  I would like to single out the energy supply and conservation account 
which funds renewable energy, energy efficiency, nuclear energy, 
nondefense environment, safety and health programs and energy 
conservation. These are funded at $1.7 billion. Over $360 million is 
provided for hydrogen and fuel cell research. This funding supports and 
expands the President's hydrogen initiative and promotes the Freedom 
CAR project. Hydrogen is the fuel source of the future and funding in 
this bill moves us closer to that goal.
  Thirdly, the committee recommends $3.6 billion for the Office of 
Science, an increase of $203 million over the budget request. 
Additional funds are provided for priority work on advanced scientific 
computing, high energy physics and operation of user facilities.
  Lastly, Office of Science funding provides for the basic building 
blocks of science and is the gateway to future scientific 
breakthroughs. We must keep America's scientific knowledge strong and 
on the cutting edge. Advanced scientific computing allows the U.S. to 
keep up with the rest of the world. We cannot allow other countries to 
surpass the U.S.'s knowledge.
  I commend the chairman and I urge the passage of the bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Indiana for yielding me this time.
  I want to urge strong support for the fiscal year 2006 energy and 
water bill. This legislation provides investment in water 
infrastructure essential not only to our country but to the Texas 
economy. I want to thank the gentleman

[[Page 10978]]

from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and 
also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for their assistance on 
these projects, particularly two flood projects, Hunting and Greens 
Bayous in my district. Thousands of my constituents' homes and 
businesses are at risk from catastrophic flooding in these areas, and 
the funding in this bill, $500,000 and $150,000 each, keeps these 
projects on track.
  I would also like to express my strong support for the $26 million 
included for the Houston ship channel deepening and widening project. 
This funding means we are on track to complete the deepening and 
widening this year and begin the barge lanes and environmental 
restoration. However, the tough operations and maintenance budget of 
the Corps could have counterproductive effects. The Houston ship 
channel budget is $5 million under capability for 2006. If we cannot 
maintain our channels to the right depth, then modern ships will not be 
able to take advantage of this new project. The project will also 
suffer as millions taken out through reprogramming are not returned as 
promised by the Corps.
  The new policy to rein in reprogramming by requiring committee 
approval over $1 million is very sound. Reprogramming goes against the 
letter, number and intent of Congress. Financial stability is essential 
and large investments are made on the basis of congressional 
appropriations. More market risk equals higher cost for all the 
projects.
  We should note a few brief points about projects that have been lost 
to reprogramming in the past and need to be made whole. It seems unjust 
that the solution to restore the letter and spirit of the law falls on 
the backs of the most recent victims of reprogramming such as our 
Houston ship channel who had reprogrammed dollars not returned.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for printing in the Record written 
commitments from the Corps under two administrations. The word and 
spirit of these commitments are to honor congressional appropriations 
law. Congressional and Corps promises deserve to be honored. That is 
the same principle behind the extremely wise reprogramming policy of 
the future in this bill. However, we should allow the Corps to fulfill 
its past commitments.
  Again, I would like to thank the Chair and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee and the full committee for making this bill possible.

         Department of the Army, Southwestern Division, Corps of 
           Engineers,
                                   Dallas, TX, September 18, 2001.
     Hon. Gene Green,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Green: Thank you for your letter dated August 29, 
     2001, concerning the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, 
     Texas project.
       I regret that members of my staff were not able to meet 
     with you on September 12, 2001, to discuss this project in 
     more detail. Based on conversations with your office and Mr. 
     William Dawson of my staff, the following information will 
     address your primary concern.
       The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers remains fully committed to 
     completion of this project based on the optimal construction 
     schedule. I can further assure you that we will reprogram up 
     to $20 million in construction funds as required to this 
     project to ensure that this schedule is maintained 
     irrespective of any shortfall in the fiscal year 2002 
     Congressional appropriation.
       I continue to appreciate your patience and willingness to 
     work with us on this matter. Please do not hesitate to 
     contact me if you have any further questions about the 
     Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels project.
           Sincerely,
     David F. Melcher,
       Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Commanding General.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                  Washington, DC, August 29, 2001.
     General David F. Melcher,
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division, Dallas, 
         TX.
       Dear General Melcher: I am writing you today with my 
     concerns about the FY 2002 Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 
     allocation for the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channel. This 
     project, funded by the Corps at $28.785 million, 
     realistically requires $46.8 million to keep it on an optimal 
     construction schedule.
       Over the past several years, funding totaling at least $20 
     million has been reprogrammed from this project to other 
     Corps projects. Given the discrepancy between the FY 02 Corps 
     budget and the amount of funding required to keep this 
     project on schedule, I am requesting that the Corps return 
     the full amount of reprogrammed money to this project in its 
     FY 02 budget. I have enclosed correspondence from the Corps 
     that my office received at the time when these funds were 
     reprogrammed for your review.
       I would also like to request a meeting with you in my 
     Washington, DC office, along with Congressman Chet Edwards, 
     during the second week in September to discuss this issue. If 
     you have any questions on this matter, please contact Bob 
     Turney in my Washington office at (202) 225-1688. Thank you 
     for your prompt attention to this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Gene Green,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

         Department of the Army, Southwestern Division, Corps of 
           Engineers,
                                       Dallas, TX, March 11, 1999.
     Hon. Gene Green,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Green: This letter is in response to your 
     concerns regarding the proposed reprogramming of funds from 
     the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas project.
       I am aware of, and fully appreciate the importance of the 
     Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels project to the economy 
     of this region and the nation. The Corps of Engineers, 
     Southwestern Division, is fully committed to completion of 
     the project based on the most optimal construction schedule. 
     I have made the recommendation to reprogram funds from this 
     project only after being personally convinced that the 
     project schedule cannot be advanced beyond what has currently 
     been scheduled to be accomplished this fiscal year. Based on 
     this analysis, I have determined that these funds are truly 
     excess to this year's project needs. The proposed 
     reprogramming is to be a temporary reallocation of funds to 
     maximize their use. They will be restored to the project when 
     they are required to ensure that we will maintain the optimal 
     construction schedule.
       I am providing an identical letter to the Honorable Chet 
     Edwards, Honorable Nick Lampson, and the Honorable Ken 
     Bentsen. Thank you for your involvement in the development of 
     the water resources infrastructure within the State of Texas. 
     If I can be of assistance on any other matter, please feel 
     free to contact me.
           Sincerely,
     Edwin J. Arnold, Jr.,
       Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Commanding General
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, February 26, 1999.
     Mr. Gary A. Loew,
     Chief, Civil Programs Division, Southwestern Division, U.S. 
         Army Corps of Engineers, Dallas, TX.
       Dear Mr. Loew: For two consecutive years, the Congress 
     appropriated sufficient funds in the Energy and Water 
     Development appropriations bill to permit the completion of 
     the navigational features of the Houston Ship Channel project 
     in four years. Maintaining this optimal construction schedule 
     is a priority for us because it will add an additional $281 
     million to the project's return on investment and save 
     taxpayers $63.5 million in increased escalation and 
     investment costs.
       We appreciate the efforts you have made to fully inform us 
     about the need to reprogram $2.2 million to the GIWW-Aransas 
     National Wildlife Refuge project, as well as your 
     understanding of our concerns. In the spirit of cooperation, 
     we and the Houston Port Authority are willing to support the 
     corps request to reprogram funds from the Houston-Galveston 
     Navigation project. However, we would first ask to receive 
     assurance in writing that the corps will reprogram other 
     funds to the Houston project to replace those lost. Further, 
     our understanding is that funds will be reprogrammed back to 
     the Houston Ship Channel project by FY 2001. In addition, if 
     the dredging project suddenly moves ahead of schedule, the 
     corps must do everything possible to ensure that a delay does 
     not occur.
       We look forward to your prompt response.
           Sincerely,
     Gene Green,
       Member of Congress.
     Chet Edwards,
       Member of Congress.
     Ken Bentsen,
       Member of Congress.
     Nick Lampson,
       Member of Congress.

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I note that the gentleman from Ohio 
included in the committee report a provision directing the Secretary of 
Energy to begin moving commercial spent nuclear fuel into interim 
storage

[[Page 10979]]

at one or more Department of Energy sites. I want to be sure that your 
intent is for the Secretary to focus his attention on existing DOE 
sites and not go looking for private sites that might be used for 
interim storage.
  Is my understanding of the gentleman's intent correct?
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. The gentleman's understanding is correct.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. So the gentleman does not see any reason the 
Secretary would consider a non-DOE site for interim storage?
  Mr. HOBSON. I do not see any reason for the Secretary to consider 
making a private site, or a site on tribal land, into a DOE site for 
interim storage. My intent is for the Secretary to evaluate storage 
options at existing DOE sites.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
his hard work and his courtesy.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
and the chairman of the subcommittee for their work on this bill. This 
is hard work.
  This particular appropriations bill goes to the very heart of many of 
our congressional districts. I appreciate very much the $4.7 billion in 
funding provided to the Army Corps of Engineers, but let me express my 
disappointment that we have not been able to stretch the dollars to 
provide work on new projects. I am speaking particularly about Sims 
Bayou, Greens Bayou, White Oaks Bayou and Braes Bayou.
  More importantly, having worked on legislation dealing with inland 
flooding, I can tell you that flooding is a very serious issue in my 
district. I look forward to working with this appropriations 
subcommittee through the coming session to be able to provide greater 
assistance.
  Might I also acknowledge my concern on the funding for 
nonproliferation in nuclear weapons. While I wish we had been able to 
include more dollars in this area, I am pleased that we were able to 
increase their funding by $8 million over last year. Unlike previous 
years, due to the appropriations subcommittee reorganization, the bill 
funds several renewable energy programs, clean coal technology, and the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Such programs greatly enhance the lives 
and security of my constituents.
  I am very pleased that the Appropriations Committee rejected the 
administration's proposal to prioritize Army Corps of Engineers water 
projects based on the projected revenue they would bring to the 
government. I want to join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) as 
relates to our port in Houston, a very important economic arm, but also 
an entity that needs a great deal of oversight and funding for security 
and also operation. I am disappointed that the maintenance and 
operation funding is not as much as it should be.
  I also wish there could have been added funds for new projects. 
Obviously, the needs of this Nation change on a daily basis. Saying 
that this year we will not start any new projects is a bit illogical. 
New projects are extremely efficient in job creation and there are many 
competitive projects across the Nation.
  One portion of the bill I am concerned about is the underfunding of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration, $136 million less than 
the President's request. I understand that some of this withheld money 
would have gone to the robust nuclear earth penetrator. I agree with 
the Committee that we need to think long and hard before we start 
creating new nuclear weapons when we are pushing the rest of the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this and hope that we 
can do something more about the Yucca Mountain project by not funding 
it, without further study and consideration of other opinions. The 
people of Nevada deserve no less.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first say thanks to you and the ranking member 
for your work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, let me raise an issue of concern for my constituents. I 
appreciate very much the $4.7 billion in funding provided to the Army 
Corps of Engineers, but let me express my disappointment that we have 
not been able to stretch the dollars to provide work on new projects. I 
am speaking particularly about Sims Bayou, Greens Bayou, White Oaks 
Bayou and Braes Bayou. More importantly, having worked on legislation 
dealing with inland flooding, I can tell you that flooding is a very 
serious issue in my district, and I would look forward to working with 
this appropriations subcommittee through conference to be able to 
provide some greater assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, might I also acknowledge my concern on the funding for 
nonproliferation in nuclear weapons. While I wish we had been able to 
include more dollars in this area, I am please that we were able to 
increase their funding by $8 million over last year's levels.
  I would like to commend the chairman and ranking member of the Energy 
and Water Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee for their 
excellent work on crafting this bill. There are several elements of 
debate between the majority and the minority, and between the House and 
the administration, but in general it seems that a fair compromise has 
been reached. Unlike previous years, due to the Appropriations 
subcommittee reorganization, the bill funds several renewable energy 
programs, clean coal technology, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 
Such programs greatly enhance the lives and security of my 
constituents.
  I am very pleased that the Appropriations Committee rejected the 
administration's proposal to prioritize Army Corps of Engineers water 
projects based on the projected revenue they would bring to the 
government. This prioritization plan would have essentially eliminated 
some, while much needed, less profitable projects. I support the $4.7 
billion provided for the corps, 9.5 percent more than the President's 
request. This is a smart investment. I wish there could have been added 
funds for new projects. Obviously, the needs of this Nation change on a 
daily basis. Saying that this year, we will not start any new projects 
is a bit illogical. New projects are extremely efficient in job 
creation. There are many competitive projects across the Nation and in 
my district, which should have been provided for. However, at least 
this bill is not a step backwards, like the administration's request. I 
commend the committee for its leadership on this issue.
  One portion of the bill I am concerned about is the under-funding of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), $136 million less 
than the president's request. I understand that some of this withheld 
money would have gone to the ``robust nuclear earth penetrator.'' I 
agree with the Committee that we need to think long and hard before we 
start creating new nuclear weapons, when we are pushing the rest of the 
world to put aside such implements of violence and destruction. We are 
being accused on every front of employing double standards: as we march 
on in war and talk about peace in the Middle East; as we spurn our own 
neighbors in Cuba but ask people in the occupied territories or in 
Korea or in South Asia, to forgive and forget; as we talk about 
liberating people but allow tens of millions to die from HIV/AIDS in 
Africa. We do not need to further degrade our own standing as a beacon 
of liberty and justice by creating such violent and polluting weaponry 
now. So, I am pleased that this bill does not provide for the nuclear 
earth penetrator. But, I hope we can all work together to ensure that 
other critical non-proliferation work done by the NNSA will be fully 
provided for in the years to come.
  Through my work on the Science Committee I have come to understand 
the amazing new technologies on the horizon that will decrease our 
reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuels, and help preserve our 
environment for generations to come. It is good to see that this bill 
has allotted $3.7 billion, 6 percent more than the administration's 
request for Science programs. However, of the energy research out 
there, hydrogen fuels and fuel cells are some of the most promising 
areas that need to be developed. The Science Committee has encouraged 
strong support of these programs, and the administration also has 
recognized their value. But this appropriations bill provides for less 
than half of what the administration has requested for hydrogen 
technology research. I represent Houston, the energy capital of the 
world. I understand the needs of this Nation for ample and affordable 
energy. As gas prices take a slow decline, we are realizing that we 
depend too much on countries that are either directly or indirectly 
hostile towards us. It seems irresponsible to under-invest in these 
next-generation technologies. Perhaps this is something that can be re-
visited in conference.

[[Page 10980]]

  Again I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on 
this bill. The lagging economy of the past 3 years, and huge deficits 
that have been created by our fiscal policies, have made budgets very 
tight. I wish this were not the case. But considering the box we are 
in, I believe our appropriators have done an admirable job here to fund 
important priorities and serve the Nation's energy and water needs.
  Yet I am very disappointed in the support for the Yucca Mountain 
Nuclear Waste Respository at an amount of an additional $310 million. 
The project needs more consideration and more study, there is much 
opposition in Nevada and the people of that great State deserve better 
from this Congress.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. FERGUSON. 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. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Feeney) for a colloquy.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time. We appreciate the chairman and the committee's hard work on this 
bill.
  I want to specifically highlight the Rose Bay Ecosystem Project in 
Florida's 24th Congressional District, which I represent. Here local, 
county, and State agencies have worked for 10 years now and have spent 
more than $30 million to restore our natural aquatic ecosystem of Rose 
Bay. Now this project has stalled, understandably, due to limited funds 
at a time of war. In the 1940s, Rose Bay was a productive estuary and 
shellfish harvesting area on the Halifax River in Volusia County. Since 
the 1990s, local engineers and cities have anted up to their 
responsibility, and we would hope that the Army Corps of Engineers 
would live up to the agreed-upon 5-point plan to restore Rose Bay.
  I would ask the chairman's help, along with the committee's, to do 
everything we can to get this project back on the appropriate steps 
forward.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Florida is aware, the 
budget is very tight this year; and due to the lack of Federal funds, 
many projects the committee supported in the past did not receive 
appropriations this year. Because money is tight, locals will need to 
do more with less and finish this with other local money. As the 
gentleman knows, I have got three grandchildren living in Florida; so I 
am interested in the State of Florida, and I appreciate the gentleman's 
bringing this to our attention.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I simply again thank the chairman for his leadership, for being a 
gentleman, and for being a friend; and I recommend the legislation to 
my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me close and say I want to thank my ranking member because we 
have worked together on this bill. It is a very comprehensive and 
detailed bill in a lot of scientific ways. We do take some visions for 
the future of this country which I think are very important when it 
comes to the waterways and we get the increased plume, which results 
from not finishing these projects, completed. I think also as 
important, if not more so, is the vision for the corps and the 
waterways in the future. Also the vision for the Department of Energy 
both in the weapons area and in the area of future cost-effective power 
for this country so that this country can compete in the world in the 
future are both dealt with in various stages in this bill.
  So I hope that everyone will support this bill.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I ask my Colleagues to join us today in 
defeating the previous question so that we can bring back a rule that 
will allow us to debate an amendment that would increase funding for 
research and development for new energy technologies by $250 million.
  Yesterday, Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz of Pennsylvania, requested 
a waiver from the Rules Committee so that she could offer this 
amendment on the floor, but she was denied that opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, for 4 years now, the Republicans in Congress have 
brought us an energy policy bill that provides billions in subsidies to 
traditional energy industries already reaping record profits. According 
to the New York Times, the top 10 biggest oil companies earned more 
than $100 billion last year, and their combined sales are expected to 
exceed $1 trillion, which is more than Canada's gross domestic product.
  Just a few weeks ago, Republican leaders brought to the House floor 
an energy bill that devoted 93 percent of its tax incentives to oil, 
gas and other traditional energy industries, and only 7 percent for 
renewable energy and investments in new technologies.
  It is time for a new direction. A Democratic energy plan would set us 
on a faster course toward energy independence by investing more of our 
valuable resources in clean, renewable energy resources, promoting new 
emerging technologies, developing greater efficiency and improving 
energy conservation.
  Today, we are fortunate to have a number of promising technologies 
that offer new ways to generate energy and improve energy efficiency. 
But these investments are just a beginning, and will need our 
commitment in future years to sustain the innovations and investment 
levels needed to truly establish a sound energy economy for the 21st 
Century.
  The hydrogen economy may be a worthy goal, but its benefits may not 
be realized until mid-century. And while hydrogen may eventually play a 
major role in replacing gasoline in our cars and trucks, the sources of 
energy to generate hydrogen must begin accelerated development now.
  The Schwartz amendment would not choose any particular type of 
technology. Instead, it would distribute resource across multiple 
technologies and use them to generate multi-year development and 
deployment projects, support research and development competitive 
grants, and increase deployment of existing and new energy conservation 
measures.
  For example, the National Academy of Sciences examined the possible 
benefits of an aggressive investment in solid state lighting.

[[Page 10981]]

Today, lighting constitutes 30 percent of all energy use in buildings 
in the United States. The Academy study found that an investment of $50 
million a year for 10 years would result in a $50 billion savings 
between now and 2050. That is a return of 100 to one for the U.S. 
economy.
  Another excellent example--fuel cells--offer potential benefits in 
vehicles and stationary applications. Fuel cells are essential to a 
hydrogen energy economy and also have a vital role to play in other 
areas. Again, the National Academy of Sciences study found that a 
sustained investment of roughly $500 million over the coming decade is 
likely to produce benefits as much as $40 billion through 2025.
  The government has an essential role to play in research and 
development. Unless a business can make a reasonable return on its 
research investment, it cannot afford to invest in R&D. And unless the 
business is a monopoly, this requires the R&D to lead to a patent on a 
device or a process that can be marketed. Applied research yields 
benefits that are too diffuse to be captured by anyone company.
  So the federal government collects funds from a broad base of 
beneficiaries--the taxpayers--and invests in research and development 
that otherwise would never happen. Almost all such funding is through 
appropriation bills--the Energy and Water bill being one good example.
  Mr. Chairman, we are the world leader in technical innovation.
  From the light bulb to the space program to the Internet, the U.S. 
has led the way. We have built the world's largest economy on the 
inventiveness of our citizens and our willingness to make the 
investment needed to advance our society. The fundamental nature of our 
free society has always been the key to our achievement.
  Science, engineering, and technology have enabled us to build our 
modern nation, and now we need to use these tools aggressively to 
increase our energy security, improve the lives of our citizens, and 
power us in the 21st Century.
  I call on Members to defeat the previous question so we might 
consider an alternative rule that would allow Congresswoman Schwartz to 
offer her amendment during the debate on funding energy priorities 
today.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge funding to 
redraw the flood plain maps that would assist in addressing flood plan 
management problems along the Missouri River. The States of Iowa, 
Nebraska, South Dakota, and Missouri, as well as all cities and 
counties bordering the river, have an immediate need for improved flood 
plain information along the Missouri River. The lack of incomplete data 
hampers the way that communities plan for their economic future and 
interact with state and federal agencies. The existing data is 
approximately 30 years old. Coupled with that, is the fact that the 
recently completed Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study, 
which includes the main-Lower Missouri below Gavins Point Dam, resulted 
in significant change to the existing hydrology and hydraulics along 
the river. This indicates that current flood plain management for the 
Missouri River is inaccurate and does not support the regulatory 
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
  This need for new information is due to the changes in land use and 
the pressure from development occurring all along the river. Improving 
the flood plain mapping, which meets the requirements of the NFIP 
(authorized by P.L. 86-645), can be developed working from the results 
of the Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study. The new 
flood plain information will allow development of water surface 
profiles and Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) for regulating 
current and future development of the 100-year and 500-year flood 
plains as well as the floodway along this 313-mile reach of the river.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the language of this bill, which 
appropriates $310 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund ``to carry out 
the purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982'' does not on its 
face present policy concerns. While the Yucca Mountain repository 
program faces funding problems, this is not the bill in which to 
address those issues and this appropriation more than meets the 
Administration's FY 2006 request.
  The language of the committee report, however, is an altogether 
different matter and strays across the line from appropriating into 
authorizing. It does so by directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to 
undertake actions inconsistent with its authority under the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act. Specifically, the report directs DOE to ``begin the 
movement of spent fuel to centralized interim storage at one or more 
DOE sites within fiscal year 2006.''
  Now, it is elementary that report language does not constitute a 
statutory mandate. As the U.S. Supreme court ruled in its 1993 opinion, 
Lincoln v. Vigil, ``It is a fundamental principle of appropriations law 
that where Congress merely appropriates lump-sum amounts without 
statutory restriction, a clear inference may be drawn that it does not 
intend to impose legally funding restrictions, and indicia in committee 
reports and other legislative history as to how the funds should, or 
are expected to, be spent do not establish any legal requirements on 
the agency.''
  Nonetheless, report language that conflicts with an agency's 
statutory responsibilities warrants a response. The committee report 
directs DOE to do something the Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not 
permit--to establish one or more centralized interim storage facilities 
for commercial spent fuel, to take title to ``some'' commercial spent 
fuel, and to consider altering the order in which utility fuel is 
scheduled to be removed from utility sites.
  What would adoption of this ``interim storage'' proposal mean?
  First, it would mean that some State other than Nevada, which 
Congress ratified as the sole candidate for licensing a permanent 
repository, would ``win'' the lottery for hosting an interim storage 
facility that would open in 2006. The report language helpfully notes 
that three DOE sites in the States of Idaho, South Carolina, and 
Washington, could be selected. It notes as well, however, that other 
Federal sites, including closed military bases, could be picked.
  This would not be permitted under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
  Second, the proposed interim facility would not be subject to 
licensing by the NRC. It is not clear that the National Environmental 
Policy Act would even apply. If you think licensing a repository at 
Yucca Mountain will be a demanding process, as it should be, the 
uncertainties surrounding an unlicensed interim storage facility should 
give pause to potentially affected communities.
  Third, since the proposal specifies no licensing process and no 
statutory criteria for site selection, it is likely that pure 
politics--not seismic conditions, not storage capacity, not even 
security measures--would guide DOE in its selection of a fast track 
candidate to begin storing waste in FY 2006. That should send a chill 
up the spine of any state with a Federally-owned site, since the policy 
proposed in the report would not provide protections equal to the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements for storage of spent 
fuel by utilities.
  Fourth, ratepayers should be alarmed by the committee report's 
interim storage proposal. They have paid over $22 billion into the 
Nuclear Waste Fund since 1983 for the purpose of permanent disposal--
not interim storage--of commercial spent fuel. An interim storage 
facility could add to costs in the long run, increasing ratepayers' 
total payments to the Fund.
  Fifth, utilities and the nuclear industry should be alarmed by this 
interim storage proposal. While a few lucky companies' waste might get 
moved before Yucca Mountain opens, the vast majority are likely to be 
stuck holding their waste longer. Interim storage is likely to divert 
DOE's funds and attention, just when the Department needs to focus on 
submitting a license to the NRC and on getting Yucca Mountain up and 
running.
  I commend Representatives Spratt and Hobson for their colloquy 
clarifying that the committee report's ``guidance'' to DOE interim 
storage does not obviate the need for statutory changes to authorize 
DOE to pursue this misguided policy. Yesterday, I sent DOE Secretary 
Bodman a letter asking that and other questions, and I believe all 
Members would be well served to consider the answers before considering 
such substantial modifications to current law.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns with the 
Army Corps of Engineers and my hope that language included in this bill 
will rein their disregard for Congressional requests.
  I concur with the committee's expressed dissatisfaction with the Army 
Corps managing of water projects and their excessive transfer of funds 
between projects. Many of us have long been frustrated with the Army 
Corps is their mishandling of projects throughout the Nation. Although 
Congress authorizes and appropriates specific projects, the Army Corps 
repeatedly ignores these guidelines and sets their own priorities. This 
has resulted significant delays that further distress the communities 
near these uncompleted projects.
  In the 12th Congressional District, the environmental restoration of 
Grover's Mill Pond is a most egregious example of the Army Corps 
disregard for congressionally mandated projects. Located at the site 
made famous by Orson Wells' ``War of the Worlds'' radio broadcast, 
Grover's Mill Pond is not only a historic

[[Page 10982]]

site, but it is a recreation destination within West Windsor Township 
and a vital link in the Township's stream corridors and watershed area. 
Years of sediment build-up and runoff from the watershed have caused 
the pond to become overrun with aquatic weeds and algae.
  This pond in its current condition is not only an eyesore for the 
community and the residents that live near it, but gives off an 
unpleasant odor in the summer. Completion of this project is long 
overdue, and could have been completed had the Army Corps not 
transferred almost all of the $500,000 that was specifically designated 
by Congress for this project. Thankfully, the committee has once again 
designated funding for this project, and I expect that the Army Corps 
will follow Congressional designation and not once again shortchange my 
constituents in favor of a project they deem more worthy.
  Unfortunately, other unfinished projects in my district such as 
McCarter's Pond and Rogers Pond did not receive additional funding in 
this bill. I am hopeful that the strong and clear direction the 
committee has given the Army Corps in this bill will force them to 
complete such projects in the future and encourage them not to create 
such unpleasant situations in the future.
  I thank the committee for their desire to assist my constituents and 
this nation by providing additional funds for unfinished projects and 
expressing their severe dissatisfaction with the Army Corps management 
of water projects. I hope this legislation will serve as an important 
step in reforming this agency and ensuring that our communities receive 
the environmental restoration assistance they desperately need.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the civil works program of the 
Corps of Engineers provides water resources development projects that 
are important to the Nation. I believe the restrictions on 
reprogramming of funds and the constraints on the use of continuing 
contracts contained in this bill will lead to the inefficient use of 
appropriated funds and will disadvantage congressionally-added 
projects.
  Congress does not fully fund projects in a given fiscal year and the 
schedule for constructing these large water resources projects is 
subject to the weather, environmental conditions, and other dynamic 
circumstances. As a result, reprogramming and continuing contacts are 
important tools that allow for the efficient use of appropriated funds.
  I share the concerns that the Appropriations Committee has for some 
of the reprogramming activities of the Corps of Engineers and the way 
they have used continuing contracts for some of their projects. 
However, the constraints in this bill are too restrictive.
  Section 101 only allows a reprogramming of $2 million or less per 
project. This is not enough to allow the corps to effectively move 
money around among projects when projects are delayed or when they can 
be accelerated.
  Also, the bill earmarks nearly all available funding, which makes it 
impossible for the corps to pay back those projects that it took money 
from in previous reprogramming.
  I must disagree also with the restriction placed on continuing 
contracts by this bill. While there may have been some unwise uses of 
continuing contracts by the corps, the restrictions in this bill are 
too severe. They will lead to inefficient use of funds and a bias 
against Congressional priority projects.
  As a result of the constraints on reprogramming, a lot of money will 
be carried over each fiscal year and work will have to be broken up 
into many smaller units making projects more expensive.
  Current law requires the corps to use continuing contracts whenever 
funds are provided in an appropriations act, but there is not enough 
money to complete the project. Only funds for that fiscal year are 
reserved, but the contractor can proceed with additional work with the 
understanding that payment is subject to future appropriations.
  Section 104 is inconsistent with current law in that it restricts the 
amount of work a contractor can do to only that which can be 
accomplished with FY 06 funds. Under section 104, the contractor cannot 
proceed at his own risk in anticipation of FY 07 and future year 
funding. The contractor will have to stop work and wait for a new 
contract the next year.
  Section 104 is legislative in nature and I intend to make a point of 
order that will strike it from the bill.
  Section 105 further restricts the use of continuing contracts and has 
the remarkable effect of restricting the corps' ability to carry out 
congressionally-added projects in this appropriation bill.
  Section 105 states that none of the funds provided in FY 06 may be 
used to award a continuing contract that extends into FY 07 unless the 
Administration budgets for the project in FY 07.
  This means that even if a Member has funding for a project in this 
bill, for FY 06, not fully funded, there are three options: (1) Hope to 
award a continuing contract before Administration comes out with its 
budget in February of 2006, (2) award a single year contract for only 
one increment of the project (resulting in increased costs), or (3) 
wait until fiscal year 2008 to award a continuing contract for the 
project (delaying project construction and project benefits).
  These restrictions apply to on-going as well as new projects.
  In Alaska, there are currently eight projects under construction 
using continuing contracts. Seven of these are not in the President's 
Budget. I expect that before this bill becomes law, it will contain 
funding for all of these projects.
  Nevertheless, under section 105 of the bill, a continuing contract 
could not be used in FY 06, and the corps will have to break the 
projects into smaller pieces or wait until FY 08 to spend the FY 06 
appropriated funds.
  I believe the restrictions in this bill will delay these important 
projects in Alaska and make them more expensive. This is a problem that 
will be repeated for other Members for projects all over the country.
  Finally, I want to applaud the Committee's efforts to get additional 
information from the Administration during the budget process. 
Information is needed for all projects, not just the ones in the 
Administration's budget. In addition, I believe that a 5-year schedule 
of spending for each project will allow the Congress to better 
appropriate funding that can match the corps capabilities for 
individual projects.
  Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky are to be commended for 
their efforts to see that program management and budgeting at the Corps 
of Engineers are put back on track. While I have reservations about the 
effects of some of the measures required by this bill, I believe I can 
work with the Committee leadership as this bill moves forward to see 
that my concerns are addressed in Conference.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
  I would first like to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. 
Hobson, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky, for their work in 
putting together the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.
  I also want to thank both of them for including $48 million in the 
bill to continue funding the Port of Oakland's 50-foot dredging project 
in my district in California.
  As the fourth largest container port in the country, the Port of 
Oakland serves as one of our premier international trade gateways to 
Asia and the Pacific.
  The 50-foot dredging project will underpin an $800 million expansion 
project funded by the Port that will improve infrastructure, expand 
capacity and increase efficiencies throughout the distribution chain.
  Once this project is finished, an additional 8,800 jobs will be 
added, business revenue will increase by $1.9 billion, and local tax 
revenues will go up by $55.5 million. Best of all, 100 percent of the 
dredged materials will be reused for wetlands restoration, habitat 
enhancement, and upland use within the San Francisco Bay Area.
  I appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this project and I look 
forward to continuing to work with the Chairman and Ranking Member to 
complete it.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water 
Bill. I want to thank Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for 
their hard work in drafting this bill. I also want to acknowledge both 
the Majority and Minority staff for their dedication.
  I can appreciate the tough choices that both Chairman Hobson and 
Ranking Member Visclosky had to make with the tight allocation for this 
bill. I believe they have made choices with the best interests of 
improving U.S. water infrastructure and advancing energy programs in 
mind. Those decisions were not easy, but this bill is the best we can 
do under the budget constraints. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in 
favor of the FY 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Act.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not perfect. But it 
provides appropriate funding for many important purposes, and I will 
vote for it.
  Subcommittee Chairman Hobson, ranking member Visclosky, and their 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee deserve our thanks for their 
work on this legislation.
  Their task was made harder by the restrictions imposed by the budget 
resolution championed by the Republican leadership, and the

[[Page 10983]]

bill does not include some things that I think should have been funded. 
But I think they have done a good job with the allocation of funds 
available to them, and the bill does include some items of particular 
importance to Coloradans.
  In particular, I am very pleased that it will provide nearly $580 
million to continue--and, I hope, complete--the cleanup of Rocky Flats.
  Formed by the location of a facility for making key parts of nuclear 
weapons, the Rocky Flats site is located just 15 miles from downtown 
Denver and at one time was the location of large quantities of nuclear 
materials and other hazardous substances. Because of its proximity to 
our state's major metropolitan area, timely and effective cleanup and 
closure of the site has been a matter of top priority for all 
Coloradans.
  With the funding provided by this bill and barring unforeseen 
developments, the Department of Energy and its contractor, Kaiser-Hill, 
should be able to complete the cleanup in the coming months--and while 
the department will have ongoing responsibilities at Rocky Flats, 
completing the cleanup will enable it to focus even more intently on 
the cleanup work to be done at other sites. So, I strongly support this 
part of the bill.
  However, while we are taking care of the site, it is essential that 
we also take care of those who worked there. Some of them were made 
sick because of exposure to beryllium, radiation, or other hazards. It 
was because of them, and those like them who worked at other sites, 
that I worked with our colleagues from Kentucky and Ohio, Mr. Whitfield 
and Mr. Strickland, as well as others in both the House and Senate, and 
with Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson and his colleagues in the 
Clinton Administration, to pass the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). I am proud to have been 
able to help get this program enacted and I will continue working to 
improve it for those who have worked at Rocky Flats and other sites.
  And, we need to also remember the other workers at Rocky Flats as 
well. As they near the completion of their jobs at the site, they are 
understandably concerned about what will come next. Many have moved on 
to other jobs, and others will do so. But many are facing uncertainties 
about their futures. For all of them, it is essential that DOE acts 
promptly to resolve remaining questions about the futures they can 
expect when their work at Rocky Flats is finished.
  For that reason, I recently wrote to ask Secretary Bodman to give 
immediate attention to two important matters--(1) determining the 
future administration of pension and health insurance plans for Rocky 
Flats workers (and for those at other closure sites as well); and (2) 
assuring the continued availability of medical benefits for Rocky Flats 
workers who will not be eligible for full retirement at the time of the 
site's closure.
  I pointed out that DOE's Office of Legacy Management (LM) has stated 
that it is developing a plan for the transition of pension and 
insurance plans, as well as for record keeping and other matters for 
which LM is responsible. However, I also noted that no such plan yet 
exists, which means there is increasing concern among the Rocky Flats 
workers about their future.
  There now remain only a few months for these matters to be resolved 
prior to closure. Time is of the essence. So, I was very glad to note 
that the Committee Report accompanying this bill directs DOE to report 
by September 30, 2005, on the Department's plan for a national 
stewardship contract for administration of the pension and benefit 
payments to former Environmental Management closure site contractor 
employees. I applaud the committee for including this directive, and 
urge the Administration to complete and submit this report as soon as 
possible.
  The bill also includes other matters of particular importance for 
Colorado. It provides funding for several Bureau of Reclamation 
projects in our state, including the Colorado-Big Thompson project and 
the Fryingpan-Arkansas project as well as the ongoing construction of 
the Animas-La Plata project. It also includes needed funds for 
operation and maintenance of a number of reservoirs operated by the 
Army's Corps of Engineers as well as for other Corps activities in 
Colorado.
  And I am very glad to note that the bill will provide funds for 
completing construction of the new science and technology facility at 
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
  I am disappointed, however, that the bill shortchanges some of the 
important clean energy programs at NREL. As co-chair of the Renewable 
Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House, I have worked for 
years to increase--or at a minimum, hold steady--funding for DOE's 
renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development 
programs.
  Given the finite supply and high prices of fossil fuels and 
increasing global demand, investing in clean energy is more important 
than ever. DOE's renewable energy programs are vital to our nation's 
interests, helping provide strategies and tools to address the 
environmental challenges we will face in the coming decades. These 
programs are also helping to reduce our reliance on oil imports, 
thereby strengthening our national security, and also creating hundreds 
of new domestic businesses, Supporting thousands of American jobs, and 
opening new international markets for American goods and services.
  For our investment in these technologies to payoff, our efforts must 
be sustained over the long term. This bill does not do that. This bill 
is $23 million less than last year's bill in the area of renewable 
energy research. This includes cuts in biomass, geothermal, and solar 
energy programs. I believe that the reductions in funding levels for 
the core renewable energy programs are ill-advised at a time when the 
need for a secure, domestic energy supply is so crucial.
  I am also concerned about the bill's deep cuts to energy efficiency 
programs such as Industrial Technologies ($16 million) and State Energy 
Program Grants (nearly $4 million) and a cut of nearly $5 million in 
the Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability Program.
  Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, my regrets about this bill are outweighed 
by my appreciation for the good things that it includes, and so I urge 
the House to pass this important appropriations bill.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank 
Chairman Hobson for his leadership in bringing this important 
legislation to the floor, and I also thank him for his continued 
commitment to the Yucca Mountain project. As a fiscal conservative, I 
share his concerns regarding the federal government's liability as 
result of project delays, and I would like to work with the Committee 
to ensure the Department of Energy (DOE) fulfills its statutory and 
contractual obligation to accept spent fuel for disposal. To resolve 
this issue the Committee has recommended the Spent Fuel Recycling 
Initiative (Initiative), which links interim storage to reprocessing.
  I strongly believe interim storage of commercial spent fuel should 
not take place a DOE sites like Savannah River. However, I do agree 
that interim storage is an issue Congress and the DOE should examine. 
One argument posed by opponents of this Initiative is that interim 
storage would create a ``de facto'' permanent repository, which 
undermines our national policy of disposing high-level radioactive 
waste in a permanent deep, geologic repository. While I share the 
concern, this argument only has merit if interim storage is dealt with 
as a separate issue. But, the Committee's report expressly states the 
Initiative has ``linked'' interim storage to reprocessing. Moreover, 
this bill fully funds the Yucca Mountain project. These facts read 
together clearly imply that the DOE implementation of the Initiative's 
core elements should not undermine Yucca Mountain. As a result, I 
strongly believe the DOE should carefully examine any unintended 
consequences in its implementation report to ensure the Initiative 
supports our national policy on nuclear waste disposal as set forth by 
the Nuclear Waste Disposal Act.
  Examining the merits of this Initiative also requires us to review 
its other core element--reprocessing commercial spent fuel. The 
Committee correctly notes prior to the mid-1970's, the Federal 
government encouraged the reprocessing of commercial spent fuel and 
even developed reprocessing facilities in several states including 
South Carolina. Although opponents often cite proliferation concerns as 
a reason not to reprocess spent fuel, the report states ``there is no 
evidence that current [European] reprocessing operations pose a 
significant proliferation risk.'' Equally as important, I agree with 
the Committee that reduced volumes gained through reprocessing could 
avert the need to expand Yucca or site a second repository. Finally, 
reprocessing can also reduce the radiotoxicity of high-level waste, 
which makes licensing Yucca Mountain a simpler proposition. As a 
result, there is no question it is time for our nation to reexamine 
this issue, and I believe the Savannah River Site's existing 
reprocessing infrastructure should be considered as potential resources 
that could be utilized for this purpose.
  Although I agree the Committee's Initiative presents our nation a 
possible solution to finally shipping high-level waste out of states 
like South Carolina more quickly than anticipated, I do not believe the 
Initiative could be implemented without further Congressional 
authorization. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), the DOE's 
authority to store commercial spent fuel on an interim basis at 
existing DOE facilities expired January 1,

[[Page 10984]]

1990. Moreover, the NWPA does not allow the DOE to construct a 
Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility until Yucca Mountain 
receives a construction license. Thus, if the DOE desires to implement 
the core elements of the Initiative, I along with the Committee request 
the DOE provide to Congress any necessary authority it may need to 
execute it.
  I have no doubt Chairman Hobson's intentions with this Initiative are 
to support the nuclear power industry by ensuring we have a permanent 
repository for commercial spent fuel, and he is to be commended for 
bringing this matter to the 109th Congress' attention. The issue of 
nuclear waste disposal is complex, and it will require big ideas for 
safe disposition of our high-level waste. The Spent Fuel Recycling 
Initiative is one of those ideas, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues and my constituents to ensure it is the best policy to 
pursue.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I am mindful of the limitations 
that the Appropriations Committee is under when funding project 
requests for the Army Corps of Engineers. I am also aware, however, 
that the committee works closely with the Corps in this process, and 
that funding decisions are based largely on the priorities put forward 
by the corps.
  With this in mind, I am very disappointed that the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill that we approved today did not contain funding for 
the cleanup of a logjam on Jacobs Creek in my district in Coffey 
County, Kansas. I am disappointed because I have made it abundantly 
clear to the corps on numerous occasions that I hear more from 
constituents about this project than any other corps project in my 
district. Further, I have asked the corps to make it one of their 
highest priorities when it comes to funds spent in my district.
  This logjam began in 1973, but has only in recent years escalated to 
such a problematic level. Currently, the logjam covers an expanse of 
more than two miles. Along this stretch, boat docks are useless and 
garbage is trapped in the sediment. The clog poses not only a health 
and safety hazard to area residents, but it also threatens the economic 
viability of the region.
  If the corps had given this request the priority it deserved, it 
would have received funding. The absence of funding for this project in 
the bill leads me to conclude that the corps has once again looked the 
other way.
  I am disappointed that this crucial project has once again been 
ignored and I call on the corps to put their resources to work and 
remedy this situation. I fully intend to continue working to see that 
this project is funded in the final version of this bill.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, the measure before us today--the 
appropriations act for Energy and Water Development--joins the early 
wave of discretionary spending bills pursuant to the recently adopted 
budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95). As the name 
suggests, this bill provides for the Nation's energy and water 
development needs, with funding for all of the Department of Energy, 
and select activities of the Departments of Defense and the Interior, 
including the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. While 
the government's overall energy strategy is now being discussed in a 
conference on H.R. 6, the bill before us today provides a vital 
additional component of the Nation's energy policies.
  As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am pleased to note that this 
bill complies with the budget resolution, and also reflects a 
responsible set of budgetary choices. Although the Appropriations 
Committee provided more funding that the President in certain areas, 
they still achieved a modest but real reduction in total spending for 
this bill, compared with fiscal year 2005.


                      Energy and Water Development

  H.R. 2419 provides $29.7 billion in appropriations for fiscal year 
2006. This is $410 million, or 1.3 percent, below the fiscal year 2005 
level, and equal to the President's request. The bill complies with 
section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of 
bills in excess of an Appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation 
of budget authority in the budget resolution.
  The bill provides $23.8 billion in discretionary BA to the Department 
of Energy [DOE], a reduction of $390 million from the 2005 enacted 
level. Within the department, BA is reduced from the 2005 level by 2.6 
percent for Environmental and Other Defense Activities ($203 million), 
and 4 percent for the National Nuclear Security Administration ($365 
million). But for Energy Programs, the bill provides a slight increase 
of 1.3 percent, or $98 million.
  H.R. 2419 provides $661 million for the Yucca Mountain repository, an 
increase of $84 million above 2005 and $10 million over the President's 
request.
  Funding for the Department of the Interior totals $933 million and 
discretionary spending for the Bureau of Reclamation holds flat 
relative to 2005.
  For the Corps of Engineers, the committee provided $4.7 billion, or 
$396 million over the President's request, primarily through additional 
construction and operations and maintenance spending, which together 
make up two-thirds of total Corps of Engineers spending. Also, the 
Appropriations Committee rejected an initiative to directly fund the 
operations and maintenance costs through the Power Marketing 
Associations' revenues.
  H.R. 2419 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which is 
exempt from budgetary limits. While the budget resolution for fiscal 
year 2006, H. Con. Res. 95, did allow for an advance appropriation in 
the Elk Hills account, the Committee on Appropriations provided for it 
with a current year appropriation.
  The bill also defers $257 million in previously appropriated funds 
for the Clean Coal Technology Initiative until fiscal year 2007, 
providing $257 million in BA savings for 2006, and an equal increase in 
2007. The administration proposed a rescission of this amount.
  Additionally, the bill allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] 
to recover 90 percent of its budget authority through licensing and 
annual fees, less the appropriation derived from the Nuclear Waste 
Fund. This will recover a projected $581 million in fiscal year 2006 
with remaining 10 percent, or $65 million, funded from the General Fund 
of the Treasury.
  In conclusion, I would like to commend Chairman Lewis and the 
Appropriations Committee on their steady work in bringing bills to the 
floor that comply with H. Con. Res. 95 and wish them continued success 
as they proceed through this appropriations season.
  I therefore express my support for H.R. 2419.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support of the 
House version of the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this 
important measure.
  I commend Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for their work 
on this bill. I believe it is a good start for addressing our nation's 
water infrastructure and energy research needs, especially given the 
budget constraints.
  As a farmer who works the land in Colorado's San Luis Valley, I know 
and understand water issues, and I can't emphasize how important it is 
to invest back into local water infrastructure. Without this 
investment, I fear we will continue to see a decline in the management 
of this irreplaceable resource--water is the lifeblood of our rural 
communities.
  The House Energy and Water Appropriations Bill would provide $29.7 
billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and 
Department of Energy, a $329 million increase over last year's funding 
level.
  I am pleased the Committee included funding for three important 
projects which I had requested back in March for the 3rd District of 
Colorado. First and foremost, the Committee included $56 million in 
funding for construction of the Animas-La Plata Project. This funding 
level represents a $4 million increase over the President's budget 
request and comes on the heels of a Colorado delegation letter which I 
spearheaded back in March. I would also like to thank the Committee for 
the inclusion of language which directs a larger percentage of program 
funds towards construction, not administrative costs.
  Completion of the A-LP will provide a much-needed water supply in the 
southwest corner of our state for both Indian and non-Indian municipal 
and industrial purposes. It will also fulfill the intent of a carefully 
negotiated settlement agreement in the mid-1980s to ensure the 
legitimate claims of the two Colorado Ute Tribes could be met without 
harm to the existing uses of their non-tribal neighbors.
  Since 2002, the Bureau of Reclamation has made much progress, and 
work has been completed or initiated on many key project features. This 
increased funding will allow the Bureau to move forward in a way that 
will ensure timely completion of the A-LP and avoid costly delays.
  The FY2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill also includes 
$315,000 for the Arkansas River Habitat Restoration Project. The U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the City of Pueblo, 
Colorado has completed 90 percent of the project including fish habitat 
structures along a 9-mile section of the river below Pueblo Dam through 
downtown Pueblo. This funding would be used to complete the project 
which is an important environmental restoration project for the 
project.
  Finally, the Committee also provided a $1.021 million appropriation 
for the Army Corps of Engineers to engage in operations and maintenance 
at Trinidad Lake, Colorado;

[[Page 10985]]

this amount represents almost a $100,000 increase from the FY2005 
funding level. Trinidad Lake is a multipurpose project for flood 
control, irrigation and recreation, and was authorized by the 1958 
Flood Control Act. The lake is located in southern Colorado on the 
Purgatoire River, and bordered by the historic Santa Fe Trail. The dam 
itself is an earthfill structure 6,860 feet long and 200 feet high, and 
constructed with some 8 million cubic yards of earth and rock.
  Each project is an important part of improving water related 
infrastructure. As this bill proceeds through the appropriations 
process, I will continue the fight to preserve funding for the 3rd 
District of Colorado.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out 
certain things about H.R. 2419 that leave me troubled. I am quite 
concerned by significant reductions made in critical programs that are 
necessary for our Nation to maintain a credible long-term nuclear 
deterrent. The appropriations for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) related to weapons activities was $6.63B in FY 
2005. That amount was reduced to $6.18B by the committee, a reduction 
of almost $0.5B, or nearly 10 percent.
  The Advanced Strategic Computing (ASC) Campaign has made great 
advances over the past 10 years. We are now able to model things with 
more fidelity than ever before. This modeling is used to certify the 
reliability of our nuclear stockpile without nuclear testing. The ASC 
Campaign was funded last year at a level of $698M. The administration 
request for FY06 is only $661M--a reduction of $37M over last year's 
levels. The administration's request was further reduced by the 
appropriations committee from $661M to $501M, coupled with nearly $22M 
of earmarks out of the $501M for extraneous projects, results in a 
final budget of less than 70 percent of last year's budget.
  These reductions come at the same time we are asking our Nation's 
nuclear laboratories to recertify our nuclear weapon stockpile with 
science and computing rather than nuclear testing. The committee states 
that its ``recommendation recognizes the Department's inability to 
achieve the promises of Stockpile Stewardship effort and redirects ASCI 
funding to maintain current life extension production capabilities 
pending the initiation of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.'' 
One cannot remove funds from the Advanced Strategic Computing program 
to fund the Reliable Replacement Warhead program--not expected to yield 
fruit for a number of years--and expect the labs to continue to certify 
our stockpile. These programs are not substitutes for each other.
  Once again the committee has removed all funding for the Robust 
Nuclear Earth Penetrator Study. This is a worth while study, designed 
to answer whether or not a nuclear earth penetrator is even feasible as 
a means of holding Deeply Buried Hardened Targets (DBHTs) at risk. It 
is my understanding that this study will now move to the Department of 
Defense and outside of the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations subcommittee.
  Inconsistent reductions and increases seem to have been made to the 
infrastructure construction projects for NNSA. The $55M administration 
request for the Chemistry Matallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) 
Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory was zeroed out. On the other 
hand the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility Y-12 National 
Security Complex recommended funding at a level of $81M, an increase of 
$11M over the request. The committee's reasoning zeroing ``the CMRR 
facility should be delayed until the Department determines the long-
term plan for developing the responsive infrastructure required to 
maintain the Nation's existing nuclear stockpile and support 
replacement production anticipated for the RRW initiative.'' It is my 
understanding that this determination will be made by the Secretary of 
Energy's Advisory Board subcommittee which is due to report out in 
June. The committee claims that its ``recommendation does not prejudge 
the outcome of the SEAB's subcommittee's assessment of the NNSA weapons 
complex.'' However, if the committee does not want to prejudge the 
outcome of the SEAB's study, it would seem more appropriate to only put 
a hold on the CMRR funds until the SEAB study has reported its 
findings. There is considerable use to be made of the CMRR in 
supporting the general science mission of the laboratory as well. It is 
not a facility to only support manufacturing as the committee suggests. 
We should not expect our critical nuclear laboratories to be held up to 
the safety and security standard that are set by industry if we do not 
provide for ways to update sorely needed facilities around the nuclear 
weapons complex.
  I find particularly troubling the reductions made to and restrictions 
placed upon the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) and 
like programs within DOE. Section 311 of the Bill limits the amount of 
LDRD funding to $250M. This is in comparison to the $400M in FY2005. 
This will severely restrict fundamental R&D that is so vital to our DOE 
complex in meeting the needs of national security.
  Section 312 of the bill is particularly troublesome since it subjects 
funds already subjected to overhead rates to those same rates yet 
again. LDRD funds have historically been used as indirect funds since 
they are redirected funds that have in essence already been taxed by 
the overhead charges.
  Section 313 restricts LDRD funds derived from DOE funded programs to 
be used only on DOE related research, as if other funded projects 
(generally referred to as ``Work for Others'' projects) do not help 
fund the LDRD programs. This is in fact not the case. In general, all 
funding for projects at the laboratories help to fund the LDRD programs 
at equal rates. The accounting nightmare that would be created if the 
installations were forced to keep the funding separate would be 
particularly onerous and waste even more resources. But beyond all 
these arguments, the LDRD program is designed expressly to investigate 
basic and applied research that has broad application across the 
potential customer base.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2419) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair 
will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the 
rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on 
which the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule XX.
  Any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later today.

                          ____________________




             STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC AND RESEARCH ACT OF 2005

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 2520) to provide for the collection and maintenance 
of human cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and 
research, and to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the 
C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2520

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stem Cell Therapeutic and 
     Research Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. CORD BLOOD INVENTORY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall enter into one-time contracts with qualified cord blood 
     stem cell banks to assist in the collection and maintenance 
     of 150,000 units of high-quality human cord blood to be made 
     available for transplantation through the C.W. Bill Young 
     Cell Transplantation Program and to carry out the 
     requirements of subsection (b).
       (b) Requirements.--The Secretary shall require each 
     recipient of a contract under this section--
       (1) to acquire, tissue-type, test, cryopreserve, and store 
     donated units of human cord blood acquired with the informed 
     consent of the donor in a manner that complies with 
     applicable Federal and State regulations;
       (2) to make cord blood units that are collected pursuant to 
     this section or otherwise and meet all applicable Federal 
     standards available to transplant centers for stem cell 
     transplantation;
       (3) to make cord blood units that are collected, but not 
     appropriate for clinical use, available for peer-reviewed 
     research;
       (4) to submit data in a standardized format, as required by 
     the Secretary, for the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation 
     Program; and

[[Page 10986]]

       (5) to submit data for inclusion in the stem cell 
     therapeutic outcomes database maintained under section 379A 
     of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by this Act.
       (c) Application.--To seek to enter into a contract under 
     this section, a qualified cord blood stem cell bank shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require. At a minimum, an application for a 
     contract under this section shall include an assurance that 
     the applicant--
       (1) will participate in the C.W. Bill Young Cell 
     Transplantation Program for a period of at least 10 years; 
     and
       (2) in the event of abandonment of this activity prior to 
     the expiration of such period, will transfer the units 
     collected pursuant to this section to another qualified cord 
     blood stem cell bank approved by the Secretary to ensure 
     continued availability of cord blood units.
       (d) Duration of Contracts.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may not enter into any 
     contract under this section for a period that--
       (A) exceeds 3 years; or
       (B) ends after September 30, 2010.
       (2) Extensions.--Subject to paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary 
     may extend the period of a contract under this section to 
     exceed a period of 3 years if--
       (A) the Secretary finds that 150,000 units of high-quality 
     human cord blood have not yet been collected pursuant to this 
     section; and
       (B) the Secretary does not receive an application for a 
     contract under this section from any qualified cord blood 
     stem cell bank that has not previously entered into a 
     contract under this section or the Secretary determines that 
     the outstanding inventory need cannot be met by the one or 
     more qualified cord blood stem cell banks that have submitted 
     an application for a contract under this section.
       (e) Regulations.--The Secretary may promulgate regulations 
     to carry out this section.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation 
     Program'' means the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation 
     Program under section 379 of the Public Health Service Act, 
     as amended by this Act.
       (2) The term ``cord blood donor'' means a mother who has 
     delivered a baby and consents to donate the neonatal blood 
     remaining in the placenta and umbilical cord after separation 
     from the newborn baby.
       (3) The term ``human cord blood unit'' means the neonatal 
     blood collected from the placenta and umbilical cord.
       (4) The term ``qualified cord blood stem cell bank'' has 
     the meaning given to that term in section 379(b) of the 
     Public Health Service Act, as amended by this Act.
       (5) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Fiscal year 2006.--Any amounts appropriated to the 
     Secretary for fiscal year 2004 or 2005 for the purpose of 
     assisting in the collection or maintenance of human cord 
     blood shall remain available to the Secretary until the end 
     of fiscal year 2006 for the purpose of carrying out this 
     section.
       (2) Subsequent fiscal years.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary $15,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 to carry out this section. 
     Amounts appropriated pursuant to this paragraph shall remain 
     available for obligation through the end of fiscal year 2010.

     SEC. 3. C.W. BILL YOUNG CELL TRANSPLANTATION PROGRAM.

       (a) National Program.--Section 379 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274k) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``NATIONAL 
     REGISTRY'' and inserting ``NATIONAL PROGRAM'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``The Secretary shall by contract'' and all that follows 
     through the end of such matter and inserting ``The Secretary, 
     acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration, shall by one or more contracts 
     establish and maintain a C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation 
     Program that has the purpose of increasing the number of 
     transplants for recipients suitably matched to biologically 
     unrelated donors of bone marrow and cord blood, and that 
     meets the requirements of this section. The Secretary may 
     award a separate contract to perform each of the major 
     functions of the Program described in paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     of subsection (b) if deemed necessary by the Secretary to 
     operate an effective and efficient system. The Secretary 
     shall conduct a separate competition for the initial 
     establishment of the cord blood functions of the Program. The 
     Program shall be under the general supervision of the 
     Secretary. The Secretary shall establish an Advisory Council 
     to advise, assist, consult with, and make recommendations to 
     the Secretary on matters related to the activities carried 
     out by the Program. The members of the Advisory Council shall 
     be appointed in accordance with the following:'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``except that'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``except that--
       ``(A) such limitations shall not apply to the Chair of the 
     Advisory Council (or the Chair-elect) or to the member of the 
     Advisory Council who most recently served as the Chair; and
       ``(B) 1 additional consecutive 2-year term may be served by 
     any member of the Advisory Council who has no employment, 
     governance, or financial affiliation with any donor center, 
     recruitment group, transplant center, or cord blood stem cell 
     bank.'';
       (C) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) The membership of the Advisory Council--
       ``(A) shall include as voting members a balanced number of 
     representatives including representatives of marrow donor 
     centers and marrow transplant centers, representatives of 
     cord blood stem cell banks and participating birthing 
     hospitals, recipients of a bone marrow transplant and cord 
     blood transplants, persons who require such transplants, 
     family members of such a recipient or family members of a 
     patient who has requested the assistance of the Program in 
     searching for an unrelated donor of bone marrow or cord 
     blood, persons with expertise in blood stem cell 
     transplantation including cord blood, persons with expertise 
     in typing, matching, and transplant outcome data analysis, 
     persons with expertise in the social sciences, and members of 
     the general public; and
       ``(B) shall include as nonvoting members representatives 
     from the Department of Defense Marrow Donor Recruitment and 
     Research Program operated by the Department of the Navy, the 
     Division of Transplantation of the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, 
     and the National Institutes of Health.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Members of the Advisory Council shall be chosen so as 
     to ensure objectivity and balance and reduce the potential 
     for conflicts of interest. The Secretary shall establish 
     bylaws and procedures--
       ``(A) to prohibit any member of the Advisory Council who 
     has an employment, governance, or financial affiliation with 
     a donor center, recruitment group, transplant center, or cord 
     blood stem cell bank from participating in any decision that 
     materially affects the center, recruitment group, transplant 
     center, or cord blood stem cell bank; and
       ``(B) to limit the number of members of the Advisory 
     Council with any such affiliation.
       ``(6) The Secretary, acting through the Advisory Council, 
     shall submit to the Congress--
       ``(A) an annual report on the activities carried out under 
     this section; and
       ``(B) not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 
     2005, a report of recommendations on the scientific factors 
     necessary to define a cord blood unit as a high-quality 
     unit.'';
       (3) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Functions.--
       ``(1) Bone marrow functions.--With respect to bone marrow, 
     the Program shall--
       ``(A) operate a system for listing, searching, and 
     facilitating the distribution of bone marrow that is suitably 
     matched to candidate patients;
       ``(B) carry out a program for the recruitment of bone 
     marrow donors in accordance with subsection (c), including 
     with respect to increasing the representation of racial and 
     ethnic minority groups (including persons of mixed ancestry) 
     in the enrollment of the Program;
       ``(C) maintain and expand medical emergency contingency 
     response capabilities in concert with Federal programs for 
     response to threats of use of terrorist or military weapons 
     that can damage marrow, such as ionizing radiation or 
     chemical agents containing mustard, so that the capability of 
     supporting patients with marrow damage from disease can be 
     used to support casualties with marrow damage;
       ``(D) carry out informational and educational activities in 
     accordance with subsection (c);
       ``(E) at least annually update information to account for 
     changes in the status of individuals as potential donors of 
     bone marrow;
       ``(F) provide for a system of patient advocacy through the 
     office established under subsection (d);
       ``(G) provide case management services for any potential 
     donor of bone marrow to whom the Program has provided a 
     notice that the potential donor may be suitably matched to a 
     particular patient (which services shall be provided through 
     a mechanism other than the system of patient advocacy under 
     subsection (d)), and conduct surveys of donors and potential 
     donors to determine the extent of satisfaction with such 
     services and to identify ways in which the services can be 
     improved;
       ``(H) with respect to searches for unrelated donors of bone 
     marrow that are conducted through the system under 
     subparagraph (A), collect, analyze, and publish data on the 
     number and percentage of patients at each of the various 
     stages of the search process, including data regarding the 
     furthest stage

[[Page 10987]]

     reached, the number and percentage of patients who are unable 
     to complete the search process, and the reasons underlying 
     such circumstances;
       ``(I) support studies and demonstration and outreach 
     projects for the purpose of increasing the number of 
     individuals who are willing to be marrow donors to ensure a 
     genetically diverse donor pool;
       ``(J) conduct and support research to improve the 
     availability, efficiency, safety, and cost of transplants 
     from unrelated donors and the effectiveness of Program 
     operations; and
       ``(K) assist qualified cord blood stem cell banks in the 
     Program in accordance with paragraph (3).
     Subsections (c) through (e) apply with respect to each entity 
     awarded a contract under this section with respect to bone 
     marrow.
       ``(2) Cord blood functions.--With respect to cord blood, 
     the Program shall--
       ``(A) operate a system for identifying, matching, and 
     facilitating the distribution of donated cord blood units 
     that are suitably matched to candidate patients and meet all 
     applicable Federal and State regulations (including informed 
     consent and Food and Drug Administration regulations) from a 
     qualified cord blood stem cell bank;
       ``(B) allow transplant physicians, other appropriate health 
     care professionals, and patients to search by means of 
     electronic access all available cord blood units listed in 
     the Program;
       ``(C) allow transplant physicians and other appropriate 
     health care professionals to tentatively reserve a cord blood 
     unit for transplantation;
       ``(D) support studies and demonstration and outreach 
     projects for the purpose of increasing cord blood donation to 
     ensure a genetically diverse collection of cord blood units; 
     and
       ``(E) coordinate with the Secretary to carry out 
     information and educational activities for the purpose of 
     increasing cord blood donation and promoting the availability 
     of cord blood units as a transplant option.
       ``(3) Single point of access.--If the Secretary enters into 
     a contract with more than one entity to perform the functions 
     outlined in this subsection, the Secretary shall establish 
     procedures to ensure that health care professionals and 
     patients are able to obtain, consistent with the functions 
     described in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A), cells from adult 
     donors and cord blood units through a single point of access.
       ``(4) Definition.--The term `qualified cord blood stem cell 
     bank' means a cord blood stem cell bank that--
       ``(A) has obtained all applicable Federal and State 
     licenses, certifications, registrations (including pursuant 
     to the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration), and 
     other authorizations required to operate and maintain a cord 
     blood stem cell bank;
       ``(B) has implemented donor screening, cord blood 
     collection practices, and processing methods intended to 
     protect the health and safety of donors and transplant 
     recipients to improve transplant outcomes, including with 
     respect to the transmission of potentially harmful infections 
     and other diseases;
       ``(C) is accredited by an accreditation body recognized 
     pursuant to a public process by the Secretary;
       ``(D) has established a system of strict confidentiality to 
     protect the identity and privacy of patients and donors in 
     accordance with existing Federal and State law; and
       ``(E) has established a system for encouraging donation by 
     a genetically diverse group of donors.'';
       (4) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``The Registry shall 
     carry out a program for the recruitment'' and inserting 
     ``With respect to bone marrow, the Program shall carry out a 
     program for the recruitment'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A)--
       (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking the 
     first sentence and inserting ``In carrying out the program 
     under paragraph (1), the Program shall carry out 
     informational and educational activities, in coordination 
     with organ donation public awareness campaigns operated 
     through the Department of Health and Human Services, for 
     purposes of recruiting individuals to serve as donors of bone 
     marrow and shall test and enroll with the Program potential 
     donors.''; and
       (ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``, including providing 
     updates''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``the availability, as a 
     potential treatment option, of receiving a transplant of bone 
     marrow from an unrelated donor'' and inserting ``transplants 
     from unrelated donors as a treatment option and resources for 
     identifying and evaluating other therapeutic alternatives'';
       (5) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``The Registry shall'' 
     and inserting ``With respect to bone marrow, the Program 
     shall'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting ``and assist with 
     information regarding third party payor matters'' after 
     ``ongoing search for a donor'';
       (C) in subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) of paragraph (2), by 
     striking the term ``subsection (b)(1)'' each place such term 
     appears and inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(A)'';
       (D) in paragraph (2)(F)--
       (i) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vi); and
       (ii) by inserting after clause (iv) the following:
       ``(v) Information concerning issues that patients may face 
     after a transplant regarding continuity of care and quality 
     of life.''; and
       (E) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``Office may'' and 
     inserting ``Office shall'';
       (6) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) in subsection 
     (e), by striking ``the Secretary shall'' and inserting ``with 
     respect to bone marrow, the Secretary shall'';
       (7) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
       ``(f) Comment Procedures.--The Secretary shall establish 
     and provide information to the public on procedures under 
     which the Secretary shall receive and consider comments from 
     interested persons relating to the manner in which the 
     Program is carrying out the duties of the Program.'';
       (8) by amending subsection (g) to read as follows:
       ``(g) Consultation.--In developing policies affecting the 
     Program, the Secretary shall consult with the Advisory 
     Council, the Department of Defense Marrow Donor Recruitment 
     and Research Program operated by the Department of the Navy, 
     and the board of directors of each entity awarded a contract 
     under this section.'';
       (9) in subsection (h)--
       (A) by striking ``Application.--'' and inserting 
     ``Contracts.--'';
       (B) by striking ``To be eligible'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Application.--To be eligible''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Considerations.--In awarding contracts under this 
     section, the Secretary shall give substantial weight to the 
     continued safety of donors and patients and other factors 
     deemed appropriate by the Secretary.''; and
       (10) by striking subsection (l).
       (b) Stem Cell Therapeutic Outcomes Database.--Section 379A 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274l) is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 379A. STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC OUTCOMES DATABASE.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall by contract 
     establish and maintain a scientific database of information 
     relating to patients who have been recipients of stem cell 
     therapeutics product (including bone marrow, cord blood, or 
     other such product) from a biologically unrelated donor.
       ``(b) Information.--The outcomes database shall include 
     information with respect to patients described in subsection 
     (a), transplant procedures, and such other information as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate, to conduct an ongoing 
     evaluation of the scientific and clinical status of 
     transplantation involving recipients of bone marrow from 
     biologically unrelated donors and recipients of a stem cell 
     therapeutics product.
       ``(c) Annual Report on Patient Outcomes.--The Secretary 
     shall require the entity awarded a contract under this 
     section to submit to the Secretary an annual report 
     concerning patient outcomes with respect to each transplant 
     center, based on data collected and maintained by the entity 
     pursuant to this section.
       ``(d) Publicly Available Data.--The outcomes database shall 
     make relevant scientific information not containing 
     individually identifiable information available to the public 
     in the form of summaries and data sets to encourage medical 
     research and to provide information to transplant programs, 
     physicians, patients, entities awarded a contract under 
     section 379 donor registries, and cord blood stem cell 
     banks.''.
       (c) Definitions.--Part I of title III of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274k et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 379A the following:

     ``SEC. 379A-1. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) The term `Advisory Council' means the advisory 
     council established by the Secretary under section 379(a)(1).
       ``(2) The term `bone marrow' means the cells found in adult 
     bone marrow and peripheral blood.
       ``(3) The term `outcomes database' means the database 
     established by the Secretary under section 379A.
       ``(4) The term `Program' means the C.W. Bill Young Cell 
     Transplantation Program established under section 379.''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 379B of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274m) is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``SEC. 379B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--For the purpose of carrying out this 
     part, there are authorized to be appropriated $28,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $32,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2007 through 2010.
       ``(b) Emergency Contingency Response Capabilities.--In 
     addition to the amounts authorized to be appropriated under 
     subsection (a), there is authorized to be appropriated 
     $2,000,000 for the maintenance and expansion of emergency 
     contingency response capabilities under section 
     379(b)(1)(C).''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--Part I of title III of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274k et seq.) is 
     amended--

[[Page 10988]]

       (1) in the title heading, by striking ``NATIONAL BONE 
     MARROW DONOR REGISTRY'' and inserting ``C.W. BILL YOUNG CELL 
     TRANSPLANTATION PROGRAM''; and
       (2) in section 379, as amended by this section--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking the term ``board'' each 
     place such term appears and inserting ``Advisory Council'';
       (B) in subection (c)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) in paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``Such program'' and inserting ``Such 
     recruitment program'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``program under 
     paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``recruitment program under 
     paragraph (1)''; and
       (iii) in paragraph (3), by striking ``program under 
     paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``recruitment program under 
     paragraph (1)'';
       (C) in subsection (d)(2)(E), by striking ``Registry 
     program'' and inserting ``Program'';
       (D) in subsection (e)--
       (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``participating in the program, including the Registry,'' and 
     inserting ``participating in the Program, including''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (6), by striking ``the program'' and 
     inserting ``the Program''; and
       (E) by striking the term ``Registry'' each place such term 
     appears and inserting ``Program''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on 
the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2520, the Stem Cell 
Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, legislation I have cosponsored 
along with the honorable gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is 
in the Chamber. This would expand the number of stem cell options 
available to Americans suffering from life-threatening diseases.
  Every year, nearly two-thirds of the approximately 200,000 patients 
in need of a bone marrow transplant will not find a marrow donor match 
within their families. These patients must rely on the help of 
strangers to donate bone marrow for a transplant. To assist these 
patients, Congress established the National Bone Marrow Registry to 
quickly match donors to patients. Through this program, Congress made a 
significant investment to connect patients with a rich source of stem 
cells that offer immediate clinical benefits.
  With scientific advances, Congress must now make changes to reflect 
new therapeutic options. Cord blood units have been shown to be a 
suitable alternative to adult bone marrow for the treatment of many 
diseases, including sickle cell anemia. This is an especially important 
advancement for those Americans who have desperately searched for a 
marrow donor but could not find a match with even the help of the 
National Bone Marrow Registry. As another rich source of stem cells, a 
cord blood transplant is another chance at life for many of these 
patients.
  The bill before us today builds on the critical investments we have 
made over the past 2 decades with the National Bone Marrow Registry and 
retools this design into a new, more comprehensive stem cell 
transplantation program, which will include not only bone marrow but 
also cord blood units. Through a competitive contracting process, this 
new program will allow transplant doctors and patients to access 
information about cord blood units and bone marrow donors, at the same 
time, and I want to emphasize at the same time, through a single point 
of access. This new program does not create a preference for either 
cord blood or bone marrow. Instead, it will provide comprehensive 
information about both sources of stem cells to doctors and patients 
and allow them to make the most clinically appropriate choice.
  I want to recognize the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) at this 
time. It was the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Young) drive, when he 
was chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and his steadfast 
support for the idea of a national registry for bone marrow that led to 
the program's creation. The gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Young) 
lifesaving work is evident again today in the program's new design and 
goals. I am pleased that Congress is recognizing his dedication by 
naming this new program the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation 
Program. I do not see the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) in the 
Chamber, but at the appropriate time when he does arrive, I hope that 
the body will give him a standing ovation for his work in this area.
  The capacity to search for cord blood units through a national 
network of cord blood banks will help facilitate cord blood 
transplants. We also need to expand the inventory of cord blood units 
so that more transplants can occur. The bill before us today authorizes 
a new grant program to provide subsidies to cord blood stem cell banks 
to expand the inventory of high-quality cord blood units that will be 
included in the new, expanded Cell Transplantation Program. I think 
that number is 150,000 units, which is a significant increase.
  In addition to expanding the number of cord blood units available for 
clinical use to save lives today, the bill would also expand the number 
of cord blood units available for research. Research on adult stem 
cells holds the potential to develop new cures for many diseases, as 
well as to expand our knowledge of how human beings develop and the 
body works.
  I would also like to make a personal aside here. My wife and I are 
expecting a child in September, and we are working with the cord blood 
people as we speak so that my son, and it is going to be a little boy 
and we are going to name him Jack Kevin, that we are going to save his 
cord blood so that some day in the future, if he needs it, it will be 
available. So in this case I can honestly say, in addition to 
sponsoring the bill, I am beginning to practice what I am preaching 
today.
  It is not enough to connect patients with lifesaving donors. We also 
need to better understand how these patients fair when they receive the 
transplants. The bill would authorize research on the clinical outcomes 
of patients who are recipients of a stem cell therapeutic product, 
including bone marrow, cord blood, and other such products, from a 
biologically unrelated donor. It is my hope that this additional 
research will trigger new scientific breakthroughs to enhance and 
advance human life.
  This is an important bill that merited many hours of negotiation, 
demanded the willingness of all those involved to put the interest of 
their patients first. I would like to thank the bill's primary sponsor, 
the honorable gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I would also like 
to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); the House leadership, 
including the honorable gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); Congressional 
Black Caucus; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking 
Democrat on the committee; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
subcommittee ranking member who is here to speak on the bill; and all 
of the staff who have labored on this bill.
  Particularly, I would like to thank Cheryl Jaeger, on my left, of my 
committee staff, for all of her efforts. She has been tireless in the 
last several months working on this bill. In the last few weeks, she 
has been able to forge a compromise that ultimately was acceptable to 
all the advocates of both bone marrow and cord blood.
  We will continue to improve the legislation that moves forward so 
that pregnant women are informed of all of their options with respect 
to cord blood donation and the programmatic activities of the Cell 
Transplantation Program are clarified.
  Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, I would urge all of my 
colleagues to support this bill. It is good legislation, well thought 
out, and deserving of majority support.

[[Page 10989]]



   The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 Establishes a 
    Foundation for Improving Access to Lifesaving Cellular Therapy 
                              Transplants

       The National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) is pleased that 
     the sponsors of the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 
     2005 have taken a positive step forward toward expanding the 
     long-standing Congressional commitment to cellular transplant 
     therapies by introducing legislation to continue Federal 
     support for bone marrow, peripheral blood, and umbilical cord 
     blood transplantation and research. Through the legislation 
     introduced today, they acknowledge the important role 
     Congress has played and must continue to play in ensuring 
     that the more than 14,000 Americans in need of these types of 
     transplants have access to them.
       The bill calls for Federal dollars to increase the number 
     of umbilical cord blood units available for transplant and 
     research. Currently, there are 42,000 units available through 
     the existing National Bone Marrow Donor Registry (National 
     Registry), which also lists more than 9 million adult donors 
     worldwide. With additional umbilical cord blood units added 
     to this registry, more Americans who would otherwise not be 
     able to locate a suitably matched adult donor will be able to 
     find hope through a cord blood transplant. The NMDP estimates 
     that with access to the existing adult donors and units, the 
     addition of 150,000 cord blood units listed through the 
     existing registry will provide a match for approximately 95 
     percent of Americans.
       By designating the existing National Registry as the C.W. 
     Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program, the sponsors have 
     acknowledged Representative Young's unwavering commitment to 
     the National Registry and its growth. In 1986, Representative 
     Young's vision of a single integrated national bone marrow 
     donor registry became a reality. Since that time, the 
     National Registry has facilitated more than 21,000 unrelated 
     transplants involving cord blood, bone marrow, and peripheral 
     blood. It now includes more than 5 million U.S. adult 
     volunteer donors and has links to another 4 million 
     worldwide. As evidence supporting cord blood as a source of 
     the same cells found in bone marrow and peripheral blood has 
     grown, the National Registry, operated by the NMDP, has 
     expanded to include more than 42,000 cord blood units through 
     the NMDP's partnership with 14 of the 20 U.S. public cord 
     blood banks. We join the sponsors in saluting Representative 
     Young's dedication to helping the thousands of Americans in 
     need of these types of transplants.
       The expansion of the Program will benefit patients most if 
     they are able to access the new sources of cells easily and 
     efficiently. The NMDP supports the intent of the sponsors to 
     provide patients and physicians with access to cord blood, 
     bone marrow, and peripheral blood stem cells through a single 
     point of access. To ensure the continued expansion of cord 
     blood transplants, it is important that patients and 
     physicians can search for all of these sources through a 
     single registry, compare each source of cells for transplant 
     quickly and efficiently, and obtain the cells once the search 
     process is finished. One-stop-shopping to obtain information 
     and logistical support is a critical component of the success 
     of transplantation regardless of whether adult donors or cord 
     blood units are used. The bill recognizes this need by 
     calling for a single point of access for these activities to 
     build upon the National Registry. Using the current registry 
     as a basis for the new program will ensure that limited 
     resources are dedicated to increasing the availability of 
     matches and not in reinventing new bureaucracies.
       Although this bill is a step in the right direction, it is 
     critically important that the Program also have the authority 
     to establish criteria and standards that provide transplant 
     physicians with the assurances they need to be confident that 
     when they compare various cord blood units and/or adult 
     donors, they have the same type of information about each 
     unit or donor. In addition, the NMDP urges members to 
     recognize that transplant patients may encounter other 
     barriers to accessing cellular therapy transplants. The need 
     for assistance in addressing barriers to access should be 
     extended to all recipients of transplants under this program, 
     regardless of cell source. Physicians and patients must be 
     able to receive all of the services necessary for a 
     successful transplant, including distribution coordination, 
     patient counseling, translation assistance, testing, 
     insurance coordination, and other patient advocacy services. 
     We look forward to working with the sponsors and the 
     Department of Health and Human Services to strengthen these 
     provisions of the legislation.
       The NMDP applauds the sponsors for undertaking this 
     important public health initiative. Through their leadership, 
     thousands of Americans who might otherwise die will have 
     access to lifesaving bone marrow, peripheral blood stem cell, 
     and cord blood transplants.
                                  ____


            Statement of Administration Policy--May 24, 2005

       H.R. 2520--Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005

                 (Rep. Smith (R) NJ and 78 cosponsors)

       The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 
     2520, which would facilitate the use of umbilical-cord-blood 
     stem cells in biomedical research and in the treatment of 
     disease. Cord-blood stem cells, collected from the placenta 
     and umbilical cord after birth without doing harm to mother 
     or child, have been used in the treatment of thousands of 
     patients suffering from more than 60 different diseases, 
     including leukemia, Fanconi anemia, sickle cell disease, and 
     thalassemia. Researchers also believe cord-blood stem cells 
     may have the capacity to be differentiated into other cell 
     types, making them useful in the exploration of ethical stem 
     cell therapies for regenerative medicine.
       H.R. 2520 would increase the publicly available inventory 
     of cord-blood stem cells by enabling the Department of Health 
     and Human Services (HHS) to contract with cord-blood banks to 
     assist them in the collection and maintenance of 150,000 
     cord-blood stem cell units. This would make matched cells 
     available to treat more than 90 percent of patients in need. 
     The bill would also link all participating cord-blood banks 
     to a search network operated under contract with HHS, 
     allowing physicians to search for matches for their patients 
     quickly and effectively in one place. The bill also would 
     reauthorize a similar program already in place for aiding the 
     use of adult bone marrow in medical care. There is now $19 
     million available to implement the Cord Blood Cell Bank 
     program; the Administration will work with the Congress to 
     evaluate future spending requirements for these activities. 
     The bill is also consistent with the recommendation from the 
     National Academy of Science to create a National Cord Blood 
     Stem Cell Bank program.
       The Administration also applauds the bill's effort to 
     facilitate research into the potential of cord-blood stem 
     cells to advance regenerative medicine in an ethical way. 
     Some research indicates that cord blood cells may have the 
     ability to be differentiated into other cell types, in ways 
     similar to embryonic stem cells, and so present similar 
     potential uses but without raising the ethical problems 
     involved in the intentional destruction of human embryos. The 
     Administration encourages efforts to seek ethical ways to 
     pursue stem cell research, and believes that--with the 
     appropriate combination of responsible policies and 
     innovative scientific techniques--this field of research can 
     advance without violating important ethical boundaries. H.R. 
     2520 is an important step in that direction.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we will consider two bills that have significant 
bearing on the future of medicine and medical research in our country. 
I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for their work on the first of these 
bills. The Smith-Barton legislation reauthorizes the National Bone 
Marrow Donor Program and adds a new national cord blood registry. Cord 
blood and bone marrow have several therapeutic uses in common: first 
and foremost, the treatment of blood diseases. Coordinating these two 
registries makes sense for patients, for doctors, and for the public 
health. With this kind of coordinated program, there will be a single 
entry point for transplant doctors and their patients to locate 
available cord blood units.
  This bill also increases outreach and education efforts so that we 
can amass the most diverse possible reserves of cord blood. It improves 
data keeping and distribution so that necessary blood gets to patients 
as quickly and as accurately as possible. In addition to the 
therapeutic uses of cord blood, this bill makes cord blood stem cells 
available for research purposes.
  There is clearly therapeutic potential in the use of cord blood and 
adult stem cells. Some of the most important research in this area is 
taking place in Ohio, in northeast Ohio, where I call home, at the 
National Center for Regenerative Medicine, a partnership of Case 
Western Reserve University hospitals, and the Cleveland Clinic in 
Cleveland.
  I mentioned we will be considering two bills today that have 
significant bearing on the future of medicine. And it is in the 
research area that the distinctions between these two bills takes on 
the greatest significance.

                              {time}  1230

  Smith-Barton focuses on cord-blood and adult stem cell research. In 
the Castle-DeGette bipartisan bill, it focuses on embryonic stem cell 
research.

[[Page 10990]]

That is a critical distinction, and the House needs to acknowledge 
that. Cord-blood and adult stem cell research are not substitutes for 
embryonic stem cell research. They are not alternative avenues to the 
same medical outcomes. Each type of research holds unique potential.
  For example, while adult stem cells represent an important advance in 
the treatment of blood disorders, these cells simply do not occur in 
every tissue in the body. Because there are no adult stem cells, for 
example, in the pancreas, the potential of adult stem cells to develop 
into therapies for a disease like diabetes is very limited. That is one 
example of many.
  Embryonic stem cell, on the other hand, can grow into any type of 
cell in the body, making potential use of these far more diverse and 
far more valuable.
  We should not minimize the importance of cord-blood and adult stem 
cell research, but by the same token, we shouldn't mislead the public 
into believing that if Smith-Barton passes, the Castle-DeGette bill is 
unnecessary, because surely it is not. It is irresponsible and even 
dangerous for Members of this body to distort the value of one form of 
research in order to stifle another promising avenue of research.
  We in this Congress have a responsibility to support medical research 
and to foster its development, as the committee of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) committee has done well over time. Millions of lives 
have been saved and improved because of the brilliant research 
conducted in this country. We also have a responsibility to speak 
honestly about that research and its potential.
  Both sides of this debate owe it to the public to draw clear lines 
between the beliefs we hold and the facts that hold, regardless of what 
we believe. The fact is that cord-blood research, adult stem cell 
research and embryonic stem cell research are not interchangeable. The 
fact is, if we invest in all three types of research, we may finally be 
able to find cures for debilitating illnesses, cures that are currently 
beyond our reach.
  The fact is, if the U.S. withholds funding for embryonic stem cell 
research, that research will continue, just at a significantly slower 
pace. People that you and I know, they may be friends, they may be 
family members, they may be professional colleagues, will suffer and 
die from potentially curable illnesses while we wait for the rest of 
the world to fill our shoes.
  Researchers in other nations, researchers in private institutions in 
this country, are pursuing embryonic stem cell research because they 
know that it is possible to accomplish this research in an ethical 
manner. Embryonic stem cell research does not and need not increase the 
number of embryos that are destroyed. Instead, it decreases the number 
of embryos that are destroyed in vain.
  We will have an opportunity today to pass two pieces of legislation, 
both are important, that will deliver hope to patients whose futures 
depend on new answers to life and death medical questions. Our Nation 
cannot pick and choose between cord-blood research and adult stem cell 
research and embryonic stem cell research if we want to answer all 
these questions, unless we want to offer hope to some and sympathy to 
others.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote in favor of both the Smith-Barton 
bill and the Castle-DeGette bill. Doing so will show that what you know 
and what you believe intersects at the point where medical progress is 
harnessed to alleviate untold human suffering.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate 
on this motion be extended by 20 minutes, equally divided between 
myself and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the original author of the bill and my 
cosponsor.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding and for his leadership on this bill and for cosponsoring it, 
along with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) on the other side of 
the aisle for his leadership over the last 3 years as we crafted this 
legislation. It is finally on the floor after almost 3 years of work; 
and again I thank my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) for 
his leadership.
  One of the best kept secrets in America today is that umbilical cord-
blood stem cells and adult stem cells are curing people of a myriad of 
terrible conditions and diseases. One of the greatest hopes that I have 
is that these current-day miracles, denied to many because of an 
insufficient inventory and inefficient means of matching cord-blood 
stem cells with patients, will now become available to tens of 
thousands of patients as a direct result of the Stem Cell Therapeutic 
and Research Act of 2005, H.R. 2520.
  Amazingly, we are on the threshold of systematically turning medical 
waste, umbilical cords and placentas, into medical miracles for huge 
numbers of very sick and terminally ill patients who suffer from such 
maladies as leukemia and sickle cell anemia. And because this 
legislation promotes cord-blood research as well, we can expect new and 
expanded uses of these very versatile stem cells.
  For the first time ever, our bill establishes a nationwide stem cell 
transplantation system. It also authorizes the national bone marrow 
transplant system and combines both under a new program, providing an 
easy, single-access point for information for doctors and patients and 
for the purpose of collecting and analyzing outcomes data.
  The new program created in our legislation is named for our 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), 
because of all of his great work on bone marrow transplantation over 
the last 2 decades.
  Mr. Speaker, cord-blood stem cells are already treating and curing 
patients. Unlike embryonic stem cell research that has not cured one 
person, cord-blood stem cells are treating patients. The New York Blood 
Center, for example, has treated thousands of patients with more than 
65 different diseases, including sickle cell disease, leukemia and 
osteoporosis.
  Some of those patients came and told their stories yesterday at a 
press conference, and they are in the gallery watching this debate 
right now. One of those men, a young man named Keonne Penn was here to 
tell his story of how he was cured of sickle cell anemia, and he said, 
``If it wasn't for cord-blood stem cells, I would probably be dead by 
now. It is a good thing I found a match. It saved my life.''
  Stephen Sprague, another man who was cured of leukemia, said he too 
was lucky to find a cord-blood match. And 22-year-old Jaclyn Albanese, 
who just graduated from Rutgers University from my State, said, ``If 
the New York blood center had not been there, I do not know what kind 
of shape I would be in.'' She is thankful as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, cord-blood has also been used to 
treat Hurler's disease and Krabbe's disease, both neurological 
conditions, which blows away the idea that cord-blood stem cells are 
limited in the potential and the capacity to turn into other kinds of 
cells. That is not too surprising, I say to my colleagues, when you 
simply read the published literature on the flexibility of cord-blood 
stem cells.
  According to a July 2004 study published in the Journal of 
Experimental Medicine, a research group led by Dr. Kogler found ``a new 
human somatic stem cell from placental cord-blood with intrinsic 
pluripotent differential potential,'' which means it can become any 
type of cell in the body. In addition, they found that the cells could 
expand to 10 quadrillion, or 10 to the power of 15, cells before losing 
any pluripotent abilities.
  And cord-blood stem cells are not only ahead in treating real human 
patients, they are also able to turn into different kinds of cells for 
research. One company has already turned cord-blood stem cells into 
representatives of

[[Page 10991]]

three germinal layers, including neural stem cells, nerve stem cells, 
liver/pancreas precursors, skeletal muscle, fat cells, bone cells and 
blood vessels.
  Last month, Celgene Corporation announced that cord-blood cells ``are 
`pluripotent', or have the ability to become different types of 
tissue.'' So we are just on the beginning of realizing the vast 
potential of what was formerly medical waste and has now been turned 
into these medical miracles.
  Let me just say to my colleagues that this idea that research on bone 
marrow and cord-blood stem cells has been researched on for decades and 
that embryo stem cells have only been researched for a short time is 
ludicrous and an unfair attack on cord-blood stem cell research. During 
the entire period where research has been happening in this area of 
regenerative medicine, the idea that cells can change types and repair 
organs, both adult and embryo cells have been around in animals. And, 
again, great progress has been made in the cord-blood and the adult 
stem cell. My bill needs to be passed.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2520, as 
well as the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, as both bills are part 
of today's larger debate on stem cell research and the hope being 
offered with them.
  As Samuel Smiles said, ``Hope is the companion of power and the 
mother of success; for who so hopes has within him the gift of 
miracles.''
  That is what today's debate is about, because at its core, stem cell 
research is about the idea of hope and miracles, a hope which has 
become quite personal for me. As you know, my husband Bob, who worked 
with all of you for so many years, suffered from a rare bone marrow 
disorder. I saw what this disease did to him. I saw his life cut short. 
And it is my hope that by expanding stem cell research, other families 
will have more than just a hope for a cure for this disease, as well as 
many, many others.
  But to be effective, hope and optimism need to be based on a 
possibility. This is what we are talking about today, whether or not 
this country will close the door on hope on the unexplainable, on what 
is truly a miracle. It is clear that by passing this bill and the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act we will not be reading articles in next 
week's paper that we found the cure for cancer or any other disease, 
that we hope to be effected. But I feel strongly that the effects of 
Federal dollars and involvement in stem cell research will make an 
unquestionable difference.
  Our country has been a leader in so many areas of medicine. Now is 
not the time to cede our role to countries like South Korea, France or 
Great Britain. By doing so, we will not only diminish the contributions 
of Americans, but also our ability to shape and impact the ethical 
debate.
  Both bills are an important step in harnessing the power of optimism. 
I hope we will not ignore this opportunity.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), a member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. FERGUSON. 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.

                              {time}  1245

  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. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by joining the 
various Members of this institution who will speak today and who will 
urge the passage of both of these bills. I certainly cannot speak with 
the particular passion of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) 
who has been touched by this issue, but this is a very good day for the 
House of Representatives. It is a very good day, because we have 
managed to reach across the partisan divides, I believe twice today, or 
we will manage to reach across the partisan divide, I believe twice 
today, to pass bills that are good for the American people and good for 
countless numbers of Americans who need this research.
  I want to say something about the cord blood bill in particular. I 
have had the honor for 2 years of working with the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) on this bill, and I am a Democratic sponsor on it; 
and I want to thank him for his good work.
  This bill will make an enormous difference to the African Americans 
around this country who often struggle with blood matches. Cord bloods 
do not require a blood match. The young man that we saw on the Cannon 
terrace yesterday who suffered from sickle cell anemia whose life has 
been permanently transformed by cord blood cell technology speaks to 
the power of this bill. We talk a great deal about health care 
disparities, and we ought to talk about health care disparities in this 
country; but rather than talk, this bill acts. It actually provides 
relief for a group of people who otherwise would not have seen it.
  But I want to talk for just a moment about the concept of principled 
difference, because I think it is very much illustrated today. Mr. 
Speaker, the reason that this cord blood bill made it to the floor is 
in large measure because rather than digging in in opposition to stem 
cell opposition, as strongly as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) feels about this issue, rather than digging in in opposition, 
the gentleman worked with the scientific community, he worked across 
the aisle to try to find another approach. And as circumstance has it, 
both of these approaches are before us today.
  If we would somehow as an institution learn from his example, if we 
figured out how, rather than digging in and deciding how much we 
disagree with each other, what other ways exist, what ways can we find 
to work together, we would not have a 34 percent approval rating as an 
institution.
  The final point that I will make is that I firmly believe that we 
have all of our genius and all of our brilliance as a scientific and 
medical community for a very good reason. I think that we are

[[Page 10992]]

meant to use it. I am hopeful that all of the technological advances 
that have happened in the last several years, with cord blood cells and 
with stem cells, can make a significant difference.
  So to all the Members of this institution, I simply urge them and 
encourage them to vote for both of these bills but, even more 
importantly, to accept this as an example of what happens when 
Democrats and Republicans find intelligent common ground. There will be 
people who will benefit from this, and I do not think it is going too 
far to say that lives will be saved because of these two bills.
  So I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his good 
work and, again, I am honored to be the lead Democratic sponsor of the 
cord blood bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a doctor, and one of 
our more thoughtful Members on this subject and somebody who has given 
a lot of time to it.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce and his staff, as well as the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for their diligent work on 
bringing this very, very good bill to the floor of the House.
  What we are going to be voting for here will help create a banking 
system so that if a patient comes in to see me with a particular 
illness that is amenable to treatment with stem cells, I can enter 
their genetic information in a computer, find a match of cord blood 
that would be kept in a freezer, and actually treat the patient. It is 
really exciting, I have to say. I never thought I would live to see the 
day where we would be curing sickle cell anemia. And for those of my 
colleagues who do not know about sickle cell anemia, sickle cell is a 
terrible disease. You get these young people, kids, coming in your 
office with these horrible, painful crises where their bones are aching 
and you end up having to give them narcotics and transfuse them. It 
stunts their growth, horrible condition. We now have 10, 10 kids that 
have been cured of sickle cell anemia.
  Just yesterday I was flying up here, and as I often do, I grabbed 
some medical journals to read on the plane. I was reading the May 19 
issue of the New England Journal of Medicine and, lo and behold, 
another research article, this one on transplantation of umbilical cord 
blood in babies with Infantile Krabbe's disease, a rare disease, a 
terrible disease, the babies die; and this cord blood study shows if 
you catch it early, you can actually cure these kids.
  I know there have been a number of Members coming to the floor 
talking about the embryonic bill that we are going to take up later; 
the embryonic stem cells have never been shown to be successfully 
useful in a human model. They do not even have one case. We have 
thousands of people who have been treated with adult stem cells and 
these cord blood treatments.
  I just want to correct the gentleman from Alabama. He has implied 
some of us are against stem cell research. That is not the case at all 
here. We are just for ethical stem cell research.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking Member for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me thank the sponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), and, of course, the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) for the second bill, the bills being H.R. 810 and H.R. 2520.
  Let me just say that separating these two legislative initiatives 
would be like separating the Flag from the Pledge of Allegiance. It is 
appropriate to have a marriage today of two very vital and important 
legislative initiatives, one dealing with adult stem cell research, 
which is vital and done along ethical lines and will help many in our 
community that have a number of significant diseases; in particular, 
Alzheimer's and sickle cell anemia. Then, of course, the importance of 
stem cell lines and expanding it under Federal funding is something 
that we cannot imagine.
  Let me tell my colleagues about an individual that I love and admire 
in my community, Reverend M.L. Jackson, exciting, exuberant, a leader 
in our community. His family just said that with all of his leadership 
and heading up ministerial alliances, he has Alzheimer's. I go home 
this weekend to meet with Reverend Jackson and to recount his life with 
him as he now sees it. But would it not be wonderful for a vibrant and 
outstanding leader of our community to have an expanded opportunity, as 
Nancy Reagan argued for, for President Reagan.
  Unless Federal funding for stem cell research is expanded, the United 
States stands in real danger of falling behind other countries in this 
promising area of research. I would mention that the National Academy 
of Sciences recently issued a set of guidelines to ensure that human 
embryonic stem cell research is conducted in a safe and ethical manner.
  This legislation, the Castle-DeGette legislation, H.R. 810, and, of 
course, the fantastic and forward-thinking legislation, H.R. 2520, 
sponsored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), 
represents a coming together of our family. It certainly deserves a 
good marriage. Just as we cannot separate the Pledge and the Flag, let 
us unite today and vote unanimously on these two outstanding 
initiatives to support American stem cell research, and to save lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in support of the ``Stem Cell 
Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005.'' This measure, sponsored by 
Christopher H. Smith, Joe Barton, and Artur Davis would promote 
research on a type of stem cell, known as an adult stem cell, taken 
from umbilical cord blood. In addition, the bill creates a new federal 
program to collect and store umbilical-cord-blood stem cells, and 
expands the current bone-marrow registry program.
  While I have no objections to the bill, it is important that no one 
view H.R. 2520 as a substitute for H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act.'' These are entirely different bills, but both deserve 
passage.
  Recent discoveries have convinced scientists that stem cells might 
eventually become the key to treating diseases such as Parkinson's, 
diabetes, and heart disease. Researchers hope to be able to study stem 
cells to better understand how diseases develop and eventually use them 
to generate tissues that could replace damaged or diseased tissues and 
organs in patients.
  Adult stem cells are unspecialized cells found in specialized tissue 
such as bone marrow or skeletal tissue. Initially, scientists viewed 
their medical applications as limited in what they can become to the 
cell types from which they were extracted. Recent evidence has 
suggested that adult stem cells could provide more flexibility than 
previously thought, according to the National Institutes of Health.
  This legislation would create a new federal program to collect and 
store umbilical-cord-blood stem cells, and reauthorizes and expands the 
current bone marrow registry program. I am supportive of this bill 
because it would be of great benefit to African Americans. This bill 
has specific language that would diversify the Bone Marrow Banks of 
this nation. This would be of extreme importance to many African 
Americans suffering from Sickle Cell Anemia.
  As you can see, these are complicated issues, but I think we are 
headed in the right direction. This bill would help our doctors and 
scientists discover new treatments and cures for otherwise debilitating 
and incurable diseases and ailments. For this I must support it. 
However, I cannot support this bill without clarifying that it should 
not be viewed as an alternative to H.R. 810, rather as a complementary 
force.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2520, which I really view as a 
noncontroversial, bipartisan piece of legislation that we should all be 
able to agree on. I think one speaker a moment ago talked about science 
and our obligation to

[[Page 10993]]

promote science. I would agree with him, but with this caveat: science 
tells us what we can do; science does not tell us what we should do. 
That is an ethical dimension, and we are called upon oftentimes to 
decide what the ethical thing to do is.
  Here we have a piece of legislation dealing with an emerging area of 
science, but one that has already proven itself to be effective in 
human application and one that also shows itself to be easily obtained, 
that is, we either throw away umbilical cords, throw away the umbilical 
cord and the placenta at the time of birth, or we save the blood that 
can be captured at that time to make it available such that the stem 
cells can be taken from that and utilized in this therapeutic fashion. 
This bill would also allow us to do research with these stem cells.
  There is a tremendous frontier out there. There is a tremendous 
frontier that shows tremendous opportunity for success. I do not want 
to overhype it. I do not know far it will go, but certainly it has not 
gotten the attention that needs to be given it. When we talk about stem 
cells, we can talk about how we obtain the stem cells. We can do it in 
several ways. And there is an ethical dimension, an ethical dilemma 
that exists with respect to the second bill that will be up today. 
There is no such dilemma that exists with respect to this bill.
  We can obtain this in very easy ways, voluntarily, asking mothers at 
the time their children are born to donate these units such that others 
might be helped. We have been laggard in our approach to this 
particular area of science. Again, I say, where we have no ethical 
question, where we have strong support from the scientific community, 
we should do no less than to support this bill strongly.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2520, the Stem Cell 
Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. The gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Barton), the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member 
Dingell), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Davis) are to be applauded for their leadership and 
the bipartisan way in which they worked to craft this bill and bring it 
to the floor today.
  I have come to this floor on numerous occasions to remind my 
colleagues about the health care crisis taking place in minority 
communities. I am proud to say that while this bill is important to 
saving the lives of all Americans, it also has the potential to 
eliminate the disparity in pain management and treatment of chronic 
diseases, and inherited ones, like sickle cell anemia in minorities.
  In September of last year, I hosted one of the first briefings on 
Capitol Hill about the importance of cord blood. As discussed then, 
with additional umbilical cord blood units added to the registry, more 
Americans, and minorities in particular, who would otherwise not be 
able to locate a suitably matched, adult transplant donor, will be able 
to find successful treatment and, thus, hope. With the addition of a 
possible 150,000 more cord blood units, we will be able to potentially 
match up to 95 percent of Americans.
  Earlier this month, the Institute of Medicine recommended that cord 
blood donors be provided with clear information about their options, 
including a balanced perspective on the different options of banking. 
The bill directs the Secretary to guarantee that education.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we need not only cord blood, but adult and 
embryonic stem cells as well to provide the full complement of this 
lifesaving therapy. As this chart shows, unlike human embryonic stem 
cells, adult stem cells and stem cells from umbilical cord blood cannot 
continually reproduce themselves and are unable to form diverse, 
nonblood cell types. The cord blood stem cells are an important tool 
for medicine, as I have said before, especially in the treatment of 
blood diseases; but they are not, they are not a substitute for 
embryonic stem cells. We need both.
  So I strongly urge support for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Enhancement 
bill of 2005, and I urge the President to sign both bills into law. 
That bill was introduced by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and I commend them for 
their work as well.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 810 would allow important research on embryonic 
stem cells to continue. Many of the initial lines have been 
contaminated and cannot be used. Further, the bill includes strong 
safeguards to protect life and against abuse.
  I urge my colleagues to support these bills and to join me in urging 
the President to sign both bills. Through the enactment of H.R. 2520 
and H.R. 810, we can provide this lifesaving therapy to many who 
otherwise may not have any other option to improve or extend their 
lives. They and their families are depending on us.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), very briefly.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point 
that some misinformation perhaps inadvertently is being spread on this 
floor, that these stem cells that are derived from cord blood only have 
a blood application. That is unmitigated nonsense. It is not true. And 
I pointed out in my opening comments that in the Celgene Cellular 
Therapeutics first reported back in 2001 that placental stem cells 
turned into nerve, blood, cartilage, skin and muscle cells, and that 
since that time other studies have confirmed cord blood's pluripotent 
capability. Surely there needs to be further research.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of 
the committee, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding his time.
  You know, you cannot divorce medical research from medical ethics. 
And as such, it is critically important we are dealing here with 
medical facts.
  First of all, although many Members and the public and the media seem 
to get this wrong, the truth is, I believe we will have probably close 
to unanimous support for using Federal dollars for stem cell research, 
but it is important to understand the different types:
  Adult stem cell, which has much promise to harvest and grow these, 
although it has some risk for infections and other problems. Some 
30,000 people have been treated.
  Umbilical cord, which is pluripotent. It can be used in multiple 
ways. Over 6,000 cases have been treated.
  Frozen embryo research, zero. And cloning has its own problems with 
that as well.
  In the area of umbilical cord blood, one of the cases, because in my 
practice, I oftentimes dealt with children with developmental 
disabilities. One case of the New England Journal of Medicine reports 
90 percent success rate with Hurley's syndrome, a developmental 
disorder, autosomal dominant one, which ends up in severe developmental 
delays and death. Those are incredible results, incredible results that 
come from looking at the facts of what cord blood stem cell research is 
about.
  Let us not distort this discussion and confuse cord blood and 
embryonic, because when you are using cord blood, umbilical blood, you 
are not killing anyone. You are not limiting or destroying a life. You 
are taking something that has been discarded in the normal process of 
pregnancy and birth.
  Let us help support the continuation of this vital research which 
does not just show promise, but shows demonstrable results. And it does 
not involve the ending of any life in the process. This is where we 
should continue our research. This is where we must continue our work. 
This is where we must take our stand today, to continue to support 
medical research that is important. Look also at medical ethics.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair inform both sides how 
much time is remaining?

[[Page 10994]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flake). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown) has 13 minutes. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 11 
minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the Health Subcommittee.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
for yielding time to me. And I rise in support of H.R. 2520, the Stem 
Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. This act, combined with H.R. 
810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, will go a long way 
towards helping millions of Americans who suffer from debilitating 
health conditions.
  I wholeheartedly support umbilical stem cell research, but also 
support embryonic stem cell research. As anyone who suffers from 
diabetes, Parkinson's disease, ALS, or a host of other health problems 
knows, one possible treatment is the use of stem cells to help regrow 
the tissues affected by their ailments.
  Scientists have stated that embryonic stem cells provide the best 
opportunity for devising unique treatments of these serious diseases 
since, unlike adult stem cells, they may be induced to develop into any 
type of cell. Adult stem cells are also problematic, as they are 
difficult to identify, purify and grow, and simply may not exist for 
certain diseased tissues that need to be replaced.
  Please understand that I do not discount the promise of adult stem 
cell research or cord blood research, but I agree with the National 
Institutes of Health that we must carefully study all types of adult 
and embryonic stem cells. In their words, ``Given the enormous promise 
of stem cell therapies for so many devastating diseases, NIH believes 
that it is important to simultaneously pursue all lines of research.'' 
Our loved ones deserve science's best hope for the future.
  Now, I want to say something. This is not about cloning. I oppose 
cloning of human beings. This is about the use of embryonic stem cells 
which would have been discarded anyway.
  I want to repeat that. This is about the use of embryonic stem cells 
which would have been discarded anyway. It has been estimated that 
there are currently 400,000 frozen IVF embryos, which would be 
destroyed if they are not donated for research.
  I would never condone the donation of embryos to science without the 
informed, written consent of donors and strict regulations prohibiting 
financial remuneration for potential donors. Our Nation's scientific 
research must adhere to the highest ethical standards. But it is 
important that we do embryonic stem cell research. We are falling 
behind other countries, and this is not what ought to be happening.
  President Bush has limited Federal funding of stem cell research to 
only those stem cell lines that existed prior to August of 2001. But 
unfortunately, only 22 cell lines are available for study, which 
prevents scientists from having access to important genetic cell 
diversity. Simply put, if it continues, that would not be ethical. 
Please support both bills.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith's) Stem Cell Therapeutics and 
Research Act of 2005, and commend the gentleman for his courageous and 
principled stand for the sanctity of life.
  As a physician Member, I know that significant successes are being 
reported from the use of umbilical cord stem cells in the treatment of 
67 diseases, including sickle cell anemia, leukemia, osteoporosis and 
lymphoma. There is great promise in this research. Umbilical cord stem 
cells, unlike embryonic stem cells can be matched to a recipient by 
blood type, gender, ethnicity, that results in fewer tissue rejections.
  Compare this to embryonic stem cells. Aside from the fact that 
harvesting embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of innocent 
life, embryonic stem cells are gathered without knowledge of blood cell 
type, without assurance that they are free from infection, and without 
screening for genetic defects. These embryonic stem cells may be 
mismatched, carry infection, or have genetic defects with cancer-
producing potential.
  There is a better way, Mr. Speaker. It is H.R. 2520, which enhances 
Federal funding for expanding the already successful use of umbilical 
cord stem cells. When you consider the ethics and the science and the 
debate, it is clear that cord blood stem cells are the right choice for 
our Federal funding and scientific support.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), an outstanding member of the Health 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support not 
only H.R. 2520, but also H.R. 810, the Castle/DeGette legislation to 
expand Federal research for embryonic stem cells.
  Undoubtedly, each of us on this floor today has a friend, family 
member or neighbor who could benefit from increased embryonic stem cell 
research, whether they suffer from spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's, MS 
or juvenile diabetes. As we consider both the Castle/DeGette stem cell 
bill and the Smith legislation on umbilical cord stem cells, it is 
important we differentiate between the effects of these two bills.
  I support both of them. But one is not a substitute for the other. 
The Castle/DeGette bill will expand research on embryonic stem cells, 
which would have the ability to reproduce indefinitely and to evolve 
into any cell type in the body.
  It is this element of embryonic cell research that offers the most 
hope for finding cures to the diverse set of diseases that plague too 
many Americans. We cannot take away that hope by shutting the door on 
Federal research on embryonic stem cells. The President's policy shut 
that door, and we have lost 4 years of robust research that will be 
needed to cure the most complex diseases.
  Opponents of this bill will say that the embryonic cell research is 
unproven, but we will never know the true promise of embryonic stem 
cells if we hold back Federal dollars for the research. If embryonic 
stem cell research gets us even one step closer to curing Parkinson's, 
spinal cord injury and Alzheimer's, it is worth every penny. Just ask 
Michael J. Fox, Dana Reeves or Nancy Reagan.
  These tremendous people, as well as countless more in each of our 
communities, know what it is like to live every day waiting for your 
cure. Slamming the door on stem cell research slams the door in their 
faces.
  We talk about using our values to pass legislation to help people. 
Both these bills are important to helping people with such terrible 
illnesses.
  This last Saturday I helped my wife's mom move into a nursing home. 
She was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in the mid-1990s. We have watched 
the progression of that terrible disease. Nothing can help my mother-
in-law. But by voting today for both these bills, we can help maybe the 
next generation, instead of sticking our heads in the sand.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for the millions of 
Americans suffering from incurable diseases. Pass both the Castle/
DeGette bill and the Smith legislation and keep the hope for embryonic 
cell and cord blood research alive.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished Majority Leader of the great State of Texas (Mr. DeLay), 
Fort Bend County, Sugarland.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the issue of human cloning and embryonic stem 
cell research cuts to the very core of politics. And today the House 
will hear passionate arguments, essentially about the nature and value 
of human life.
  Now, that debate will be, among other things, controversial, because 
the proponents of embryo destruction in the name of progress believe it 
is not the embryo destruction its opponents oppose, but rather progress 
itself. But it is not so, and the bill before us now, the Stem Cell 
Therapeutic and Research Act proves it.

[[Page 10995]]

  This bill, which provides for Federal funding of research using adult 
stem cells which have, unlike embryonic stem cells, proven medical 
benefits in treating more than 60 separate diseases, will pass with the 
overwhelming support of both sides of this debate.
  Now, this bill, sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) will, for the first time, provide for taxpayer-funded research 
on well-developed stem cells from umbilical cords, expand Federal 
funding in bone marrow stem cell research, and provide for the 
development of a national stem cell therapy database for medical 
practitioners and researchers.
  This is what progress is, Mr. Speaker, concrete, definable and based 
on fact, rather than speculation or a false sense of hope.
  The best one can say about embryonic stem cell research is that it is 
a scientific exploration into the potential benefits of killing human 
beings. Proponents of medical research on destroyed human embryos would 
justify admittedly unfortunate means with the potential ends of medical 
breakthroughs down the line.
  But the deliberate destruction of unique, living self-integrated 
human persons is not some incidental tangent of embryonic stem cell 
research. It is the essence of the experiment. Kill some in hopes of 
saving others.
  The choice, however well intentioned, is predicated upon a 
utilitarian view of human life that this bill shows our government need 
not take. The Smith bill will fund the only kind of stem cell research 
that has ever proven medically beneficial, while helping to develop new 
and exciting avenues of inquiry, all without harming a single human 
embryo.
  This bill is progress, Mr. Speaker, and represents a perfect contrast 
to speculative and harmful methods of embryonic stem cell research. 
This is the right stem cell bill, Mr. Speaker.
  Progress, even progress that pushes the envelope of medical 
knowledge, need not be controversial. It need not divide us or force 
people of goodwill to devalue human life. Progress, in fact, is the 
opposite of such a choice. And the Smith bill unites the public and 
private sectors, both doctors and patients, and recognizes the inherent 
dignity and value of every human person.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of 
stem cell research. It saves lives, it prolongs life, and it helps 
unhealthy people remain existent on this earth.
  I am a diabetic myself, and for the last decade I have been working 
with stem cell research in my own district. The Karmanos Cancer 
Institute, world renowned in our community and in Michigan, and part of 
the former Detroit Medical Center, is a leader in research.
  This bill deals with cord research, umbilical cord research, not 
controversial. Medical professionals and others support umbilical cord 
research.

                              {time}  1315

  Umbilical cord research is the cord that is separated after a woman 
delivers her child. In many instances, 90 percent of the time, those 
cords are displaced and thrown away. What this bill will help us do is 
first of all gather those cords across America to save lives, to renew 
organs, and to continue life as we know it.
  So I rise in support of H.R. 2520 as another means for us to prolong 
life, to give life, from stem cords, umbilical cords of women that are 
heretofore thrown out.
  In our community, we are educating women and asking for their 
permission that medical research is able to use the cords, the 
umbilical cords of the fetus. It is new, it is exciting, and it is 
happening all over the world. Our country is first in medical science; 
and this act that we are taking today will continue research and 
development, healthier lives and longer lives.
  Support H.R. 2520 and let us bring America up so that we can save 
lives, prolong lives, and build a real strong America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the ``Stem Cell Therapeutic and 
Research Act''.
  This bill creates a new federal program to collect and store 
umbilical cord blood stem cells and reauthorize and expands the current 
bone marrow registry program.
  Umbilical cord blood units, typically discarded at hospitals, can be 
an unlimited source of stem cells with representation of all races and 
ethnicities.
  According to the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP), African-
Americans have only a 30 percent chance of finding a stem cell match 
within their own families and often require healthy stem cells from an 
unrelated individual, typically another African American. Of the NMDP's 
registry of donors, only 8 percent are from African-Americans.
  I support the use of embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells and cord 
blood research to find cures. I urge all of my colleagues to support 
this bill and H.R. 810 ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act'' 
introduced by Representatives Mike Castle and Diana DeGette that would 
lift Bush's 2001 ban on the use of federal dollars for research using 
any mew embryonic stem cell lines.
  All avenues of stem cell research need to be explored. The current 
embryonic stem cell policy must be changed.
  We can no longer tie the hands of our scientists and researchers when 
millions of lives are at stake.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me time. I want to congratulate the chairman and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) for their 
leadership.
  What we are doing with this legislation is that we are celebrating 
life and we are celebrating science. Our debate today and this bill, 
this bill is so very important because it is not often that politicians 
get it right when dealing with health care or science. I know. As a 
physician I have seen government inject itself in places it ought not 
go and spend countless dollars on fanciful and distorted claims. 
However, H.R. 2520 will save lives and improve the quality of life for 
millions. And I know this because it will increase the use of a science 
that has already been proven.
  As a new Member of Congress, I am proud to stand before you and lend 
my support to a positive and productive piece of legislation that will 
bring sunlight to those who have experienced too many clouds, and it 
will do so in an unquestionable and ethical manner.
  I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) for 
their persistence, their cooperation, and their leadership.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my voice to the 
stem cell research debate. As a co-sponsor of H.R. 810, I hope we can 
expand our scope and benefit of existing stem cell lines. H.R. 810 
represents another step forward in our battle against diseases and 
illnesses which we have spent billions of dollars trying to research, 
treat, and cure.
  As the premier medical research Nation, we must allow our researchers 
and doctors to remain at the top of their fields of research both 
internationally and nationally. We must support our research 
institutions as they embark on the ethical, expert and very, very 
necessary trials.
  Federal research restricts federal funding of stem cell research to 
the 78 stem cell lines that existed prior to Aug. 9, 2001. Mr. Speaker, 
H.R. 810 does not usher us into uncharted waters: we are already 
engaged in both the federal funding and the federal oversight of this 
research. If we see the benefit to permitting research on 78, then the 
argument is not embryonic research--but rather numbers.
  I come from a district where we have perhaps the leading medical 
research institutions. In my district Case Western Reserve University, 
the Cleveland Clinic, and University Hospital have embarked on a 
monumental and groundbreaking project to establish the National Center 
for Regenerative Medicine. Within the walls of these three institutions 
lie perhaps some of the most advanced and prolific members of the 
scientific research community on regenerative medicine.

[[Page 10996]]

  While this research is basically focused on adult stem cell and 
umbilical cord research, we must continue to move forward with research 
in a responsible, compassionate, and humane way. We must support the 
efforts of the National Institutes of Health as we move forward.
  I support the movement towards the treatment, research, and cure of 
diseases and illnesses which the use of stem cells can alleviate.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the distinguished leader of the Republican 
Study Committee.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I 
commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his visionary 
legislation, the Stem Cell Research Act.
  There is such enormous promise, Mr. Speaker, in adult stem cell 
research, the ethical research that has been under way for decades and 
has produced to date treatments to nearly 67 diseases including sickle 
cell, leukemia, osteoporosis, just to name a few.
  Even last October, a Korean woman who had been paralyzed for 19 years 
took a few steps for reporters in Seoul with the aid of a walker and 
ethical adult cord blood stem cells injected into her spine.
  I just spoke today to a young man in my congressional district who 
was injured last Saturday night and now faces a lifetime in a 
wheelchair. I can tell you, having spoken to his parents, I would do 
anything to help that brave young man out of that chair. I would do 
anything except fund the destruction of human embryos for research.
  President Kennedy said: ``To lead is to choose'' and today Congress 
will choose and should choose to promote ethical healing by adopting 
the Stem Cell Research Act, to prevent the erosion of the principle 
that all human life, even embryonic human life, is sacred.
  Say ``yes'' to ethical adult stem cell research and ``no'' to funding 
the destruction of human embryos for scientific advancement.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how many speakers does the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton) have remaining and, Mr. Speaker, who has the 
right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flake). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has the right to close.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have three willing speakers now 
and more on the way.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a member of the committee.
  Mr. PITTS. 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. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we wonder, as most medical scientists wonder, why not 
both kinds of research. We in no way want to restrict it to just one or 
the other like my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the distinguished Congressman and former 
Governor of the first State of our Union.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2520, which 
establishes a national cord blood stem cell inventory, a cord blood 
system, and to reauthorize the National Bone Marrow Registry.
  This is an important piece of legislation because it addresses a 
vital need to establish a publicly coordinated national umbilical cord 
blood bank similar to the National Bone Marrow Registry. However, it is 
important to note that umbilical cord blood cells are a type of adult 
stem cells that have been used only to treat blood disorders like 
leukemia and lymphoma.
  Scientists do not believe that these cord blood stem cells will 
provide answers to diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord 
injuries, or other nonblood-related disorders.
  According to Dr. David Shaywitz, an endocrinologist and stem cell 
researcher at Harvard, it seems extremely unlikely that adult blood 
cells or blood cells from the umbilical cord will be therapeutically 
useful as a source of anything else but blood. That is why we must 
support all forms of stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell 
research, so researchers have the greatest chance of discovering 
treatments and cures. That is why I am supporting this legislation as 
well as H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, to expand the 
current Federal embryonic stem cell policy.
  I urge everyone to support this legislation and support H.R. 810.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation to help 
us have continued success in the funding for research for uses for 
adult stem cells.
  Adult stem cells really encompass a number of different kinds. People 
have talked today about cord blood. They have talked about the bone 
marrow stem cells. A number of them have already been used clinically 
and with much success.
  I believe it is this Congress's duty to help support that, because 
certainly we will have many people who have benefited already and 
additional people in the future who can benefit from this kind of 
research. In fact, the University of Pittsburgh in my hometown just 
announced about a week or so ago that they are doing clinical trials 
regarding the use of bone marrow stem cells to help reverse chronic 
heart failure.
  I met a gentleman actually who was involved in the research, and they 
talked about trials that have already been done in South America that 
have been successful. These are all with adult stem cells. It is 
important for Congress to fund research, but it is especially important 
for this Congress to fund responsible research and that is the research 
supported on this bill on adult stem cells.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has 4-
\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 4 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have two remaining speakers.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining, and I 
will close.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to set the record 
straight.
  There have been some people who have implied there is limited 
capacity for these cord blood stems to be used successfully. They have 
been shown to be pluripotent. They can become all different cell types, 
and they have shown a tremendous amount of plasticity.
  This poster is of a young lady who was paralyzed for years and had an 
adult stem cell transplant. She is able to stand up.
  But I just want to clarify on the cord blood, it has been used to 
treat leukemia, adrenoleukodystrophy, Burkitt's lymphoma, chronic 
granulomatous diseases, congenital neutropenia,

[[Page 10997]]

DiGeorge's syndrome, Fanconi's anemia, and these are just some of them, 
Gaucher's disease. Hodgkin's disease, cord blood has been used 
successfully to treat Hodgkin's disease; idiopathic thrombocytopenic 
purpura, which is a really bad disease. I used to see some of those. 
Krabbe's disease I mentioned earlier, that was just in the New England 
Journal this month. Lymphoma; lymphoproliferative syndrome; 
myelofibrosis; neuroblastoma, which is a form of brain tumor which has 
been successfully treated with cord blood. Osteopetrosis has been 
successfully treated. Reticular dysgenesis, severe aplastic anemia.
  The list goes on and on. There are 65 different medical conditions 
that have been successfully treated with cord blood.
  People have mentioned diabetes. Embryonic stem cells have not been 
successfully used to treat diabetes either, but actually in animal 
models adult stem cells have been used successfully to treat diabetes. 
I think most of the hope and success is in this cord blood. That is why 
this bill is very, very important.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1-\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to share the words from the President who 
seems to have sent a different message than my friends on the other 
side of the aisle.
  President Bush said, ``Most scientists believe that research on 
embryonic stem cells offers the most promise because these cells have 
the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.''
  I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue that we really 
only need cord blood stem cell research, that that will lead us to all 
that we need.

                              {time}  1330

  And the President said about that, that ``No adult stem cell has been 
shown in culture to be pluripotent.'' And he said, ``Embryonic stem 
cells have the potential to develop into all or nearly all of the 
tissues in the body.''
  I then hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about 
research, that this is going to lead to so much more research. Yet at 
the same time we have seen no increase, flat-lined spending, budgeting 
on the National Institutes of Health, something that many of us, the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and many of the rest of us, 
have thought we should increase spending on, medical research all 
across the board in all kinds of medical research.
  Yes, in order to make room for the President's tax cuts that have 
gone overwhelmingly to the wealthiest in our country, we have simply 
cut medical research and not done what we should as a Nation do overall 
in medical research.
  So when I hear my friends talk on this, I do not quite get how this 
will expand medical research while closing out one whole avenue of 
medical research and, at the same time, cutting spending on what we 
should be doing to move our country ahead.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from the Keystone State of Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult issue 
for me. I am a diabetic. I have diabetes in my family. I am cochairman 
of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus. My wife is a full-time diabetes 
educator. She has spent her entire time as a health care professional 
educating and working with diabetics.
  The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Langevin) are very good friends of mine. I have 
studied all their information. I have tried to be as open about this as 
I possibly can be. But I can say, Mr. Speaker, that in the end it comes 
down to not eliminating any type of research, because that is allowable 
in this country; it is whether or not we should use Federal funds. 
California is using some $3 billion right now on what this bill is 
attempting to deal with.
  In the end, Mr. Speaker, this is a very personal decision. It is one 
that I agonized over. I am not a medical professional. I consulted with 
all four of my friends who are medical doctors in this Chamber. They 
have studied medicine, they understand medical research, they 
understand bioethics far better than I ever will, and I come down on 
their side. I come down on the side of life.
  I will oppose the bill that is being offered by my friend, the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and my friend, the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and I will support the alternative that is 
being offered by this conference.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to 
the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the sponsor of this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Forbes). The gentleman from Ohio has 
3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I do not know why this debate has to be 
either/or, either we are going to cure sickle cell anemia or we have 
the potential to cure Type 1 diabetes. Every single American who 
suffers from a terrible disease should have the right to a cure.
  Now, this bill that we are debating right now, it is a fine bill. I 
support this bill. I think cord blood research is important. Like adult 
stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells have proven to be a source of 
hematopoietic stem cells. Those are the ones that are the blood-forming 
stem cells that have been used for about a decade to treat blood 
diseases like leukemia and lymphoma. That is great.
  But it is not either that or H.R. 810, because unlike human embryonic 
stem cells, stem cells from umbilical cord blood cannot continually 
reproduce themselves. Instead of proliferating, they quickly evolve 
into specialized cells. That is why they have not proven to be useful 
in some of the early studies.
  Now, the opponents of H.R. 810 say, well, embryonic stem cells have 
not been used to cure any disease. That is because we are in the very 
promising early stages of that research. And the adult stem cells have 
been used in their narrow milieu to cure diseases and to help with 
diseases that are blood specific.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that there is no, no scientific 
evidence today that will show that the cord blood or the adult stem 
cells will cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Type 1 diabetes, or the 
multitude of other diseases that are not blood based.
  Now, some of the opponents of H.R. 810 say, well, scientific studies 
have shown adult stem cells to be pluripotent. Number one, their 
argument, their argument is that embryonic stem cells have not shown 
clinical application. Guess what? Neither have adult stem cells been 
shown clinically to be pluripotent. Furthermore, the studies where 
there were some indications of that were not peer reviewed and, 
frankly, are rejected by the scientific community.
  Here is a chart. This chart shows exactly what embryonic and adult 
stem cells are good for and, frankly, they are good for different 
things. So let us not muddle the science. If people do not want to do 
embryonic stem cell research, they can look in the eye of our 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Langevin) and others 
and say to them, we do not want to do the research that could cure your 
disease, and I challenge them to do that.
  In conclusion, Curt Civin, M.D., who is a doctor at Johns Hopkins 
University School of Medicine and a researcher, says ``As a physician-
scientist who has done research involving umbilical cord stem cells for 
over 20 years, I am frequently surprised by the thought from 
nonscientists that core blood stem cells may provide an alternative to 
embryonic stem cells for research. This is simply wrong.''
  And it is wrong to say either/or. That is why we should vote ``yes'' 
on this bill and H.R. 810.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time, and I want to thank the majority leader and the Speaker for 
bringing these two bills to the floor today.

[[Page 10998]]

  The first vote we will have is on the cord blood and bone marrow 
bill, H.R. 2520. This bill, by itself, is an extremely important 
advance for those of us that believe you can use medical research 
ethically to help find cures for existing disease and enhance human 
life both now and in the future.
  I am, obviously, as one of the original sponsors of the bill, going 
to vote for it and encourage all the Members on both sides of the aisle 
to vote for its. It is a good piece of legislation and, by itself, is a 
major advancement in the state of the art that we have today.
  The next debate that we will have is on the Castle-DeGette bill which 
is another form of stem cell research, embryonic stem cell. That issue 
is much more controversial, but on its own merit that bill itself 
deserves a serious debate. And while it is not yet time to debate that 
bill, at that time I will announce that I will vote for that bill also.
  So I hope we can do first things first. Let us pass in a strong 
bipartisan fashion the Smith-Barton-Young adult cord blood bone marrow 
bill, and then go on to the next issue.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for the Stem 
Cell Therapeutics and Research Act of 2005. As many of my colleagues 
have discussed, this bill provides federal support to help cord blood 
banks collect and maintain new cord blood units. It's important to 
acknowledge that this bill also reaffirms Congress's commitment to the 
National Bone Marrow Donor Registry.
  Established in 1986, the National Registry has facilitated more than 
21,000 lifesaving transplants involving cord blood, peripheral blood, 
and bone marrow. Although we are discussing cord blood for the first 
time today, the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP), which has 
operated the National Registry since its inception, has already 
incorporated cord blood into the registry to help patients, especially 
minority patients whose genetic diversity often makes it difficult to 
find a suitably matched adult volunteer donor. Through the NMDP today, 
individuals in need of a cord blood transplant already have access to 
the largest listing of cord blood units in the United States--more than 
42,000 units. In addition, the NMDP lists more than 9 million adult 
volunteer donors. Today, we celebrate the National Registry's success 
by acknowledging its expanded role in the research and development of 
new sources of hematopoietic cells for transplant by renaming it the CW 
Bill Young Cell Therapies Program.
  I am particularly proud of the work of the NMDP, especially its 
strong support for cord blood and because of its partnership with the 
St. Louis Cord Blood Bank. The St. Louis Cord Blood Bank is the 
cornerstone of an active clinical stem cell transplantation and 
research program at Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital and St. Louis 
University.
  Along with the St. Louis Cord Blood Bank, the NMDP partners with 14 
of the 20 U.S. public cord blood banks. Another 3 are in the process of 
becoming partners. Together, the NMDP and these cord blood banks are 
working to increase the national inventory of cord blood available for 
transplants and research. Their work helps thousands of Americans with 
life-threatening diseases, such as sickle cell anemia.
  It is essential that the existing integrated program continue to be 
able to operate as it does today. Physicians and patients must be able 
to search for and obtain support from a single national registry that 
includes cord blood, peripheral blood, and bone marrow. Physicians 
should not have to waste time searching multiple cord blood banks and 
adult donor registries or having to coordinate the further testing and 
delivery of units.
  Searching is not the only function that must be integrated. 
Physicians need to be confident that the results of their searches 
allow them to truly compare cord blood units and adult donor 
information. Thus, the cord blood community should work with the 
National Program to establish criteria and standards to ensure 
consistency of the information that is part of the registry. Finally, 
it is important that all patients, not just those who receive a bone 
marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplants, receive the patient 
advocacy and educational services that the NMDP provides to all the 
patients it assists.
  The NMDP already provides physicians and their patients with this 
type of support. This bill is a step in the right direction because it 
builds upon the existing registry. We must be careful not to waste 
scarce federal dollars by duplicating what is already working well. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2520, which 
provides for an integrated National Program.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2520, which combines legislation I introduced and passed in the 108th 
Congress to reauthorize the National Bone Marrow Registry with 
legislation by my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Smith to authorize a 
federal investment in building an inventory of 150,000 umbilical cord 
blood units. This life-saving bill is good for patients, good for 
transplant doctors, good for researchers and it represents good policy 
for our Nation.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank many colleagues for 
bringing this legislation to the floor. Let me thank the Chairman of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton for providing the 
leadership to advance this important bill. His commitment to providing 
sound national policy in this area of stem cell transplantation has 
produced an excellent legislative design that will benefit thousands of 
patients immediately upon enactment. I would also like to thank my 
friend, Mr. Smith of New Jersey for his leadership in the area of 
umbilical cord blood--an area of rapidly developing science and 
opportunity. His legislation from the previous Congress has provided 
the framework for enhancing our Nation's ability to provide cord blood 
units to help save lives. His vision on the potential of cord blood has 
helped make this bill possible today and I thank him for his 
dedication.
  This legislation builds on the investment made by Congress 18 years 
ago when we established a national bone marrow donor program to save 
the lives of patients with leukemia and many other blood disorders. 
Countless dedicated doctors, patients, families, and research 
scientists have continued to pioneer new approaches to saving lives 
using these blood stem cells from bone marrow and now umbilical cord 
blood cells.
  This bill authorizes funding for 5 years to continue federal support 
for bone marrow, peripheral blood and umbilical cord blood 
transplantation and research. With this legislation, transplant doctors 
and patients will have an enhanced, single point of electronic access 
to the full array of information on possible bone marrow matches, as 
well as matches with cord blood units from the new national inventory 
which would be created. In a matter of minutes, physicians can review 
the options and reserve the best possible sources for their patients. 
In addition, the new effort will facilitate accreditation of cord blood 
banks, stimulate research, and collect and share data on the outcomes 
of all transplants.
  Last month, at the request of our Appropriations Committee direction, 
the Institute of Medicine released its report on cord blood and how the 
inventory should be built and integrated into the existing national 
registry. This bill before us has been shaped by the guidance provided 
through the IOM process and during the past year-and-a-half a consensus 
has been building for moving forward to combine our activities in bone 
marrow and cord blood. That consensus has formed the basis for this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this literally is life saving legislation. Through the 
efforts of the National Marrow Donor Program--which this Congress 
initiated in 1987--many lives have already been saved. To date, the 
Program has facilitated almost 21,000 unrelated transplants involving 
bone marrow, cord blood or peripheral blood. That means 21,000 
individuals--both children and adults who are otherwise suffering from 
terminal disease--received the gift of life through this national 
program.
  When the program first started, our goal was to build a national 
registry of 250,000 individuals willing to donate marrow. Mr. Speaker, 
we found that the human spirit responded to our efforts in ways that we 
could not imagine. I am proud to say that as of this month, the 
National Bone Marrow Registry has more than 5.6 million potential bone 
marrow donors signed up. In addition, the Program has an additional 
41,666 units of umbilical cord blood in reserve for transplant through 
its network of 15 affiliated cord blood banks throughout the country. 
Total transplants from all sources for last year alone exceeded 2500.
  Let me repeat--we have 5.6 million volunteer bone marrow donors 
signed up in the national program. These are true volunteers in every 
sense of the word. They have given of their time to take a simple blood 
test to be listed in the national registry. For more than 20,000 who 
have been called upon to donate bone marrow, they have undergone a 
relatively simple surgical procedure to donate their bone marrow to 
save the life of a man, woman or child with anyone of more than 85 
different diseases. Another 41,000 women have donated umbilical cord 
blood which can be used in the same way as bone marrow, to transplant 
life giving cells to cure disease.
  This legislation will provide the funding to greatly increase the 
number of cord blood

[[Page 10999]]

units that can be collected and stored. Nineteen million dollars has 
already been appropriated for this purpose over the past two years and 
this legislation will allow that immediate infusion of funds into 
building up reserves of umbilical cord blood. The scientific reason for 
this is clear. Thanks to research, cord blood has now become another 
very important source for obtaining and transplanting the particular 
cell found in bone marrow and peripheral blood that can restore health 
to those suffering from so many different diseases. In addition, by 
building up the cord blood inventory, the overall resource will be much 
more likely to meet the needs of patients from genetically diverse, 
ethnic populations. It is estimated that adding 150,000 new cord blood 
units to the number of existing bone marrow donors will provide 
potential cell matches for about 95 percent of all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, this national effort is a true modern miracle and this 
new legislation will reinforce and strengthen the program. Today, our 
National Bone Marrow Program is affiliated with 156 transplant centers, 
82 donor centers, 15 cord blood banks, 102 transplant marrow collection 
centers and 82 Apheresis centers. Of these, 72 are international 
facilities.
  Having had the great pleasure to meet with hundreds of donors and 
patients, I can tell you that donating bone marrow or cord blood can be 
a true life-changing experience. The experience of giving life to 
another human being is beyond mere words.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many people who have been heroes in this 
effort and need to be recognized for their contributions. The first is 
a little 10 year old girl who died of leukemia at All Children's 
Hospital in my home district of St. Petersburg 18 years ago. Brandy Bly 
might have been saved from leukemia back in 1987 if matched bone marrow 
or cord blood cells had been available. It was during her treatment 
that I first learned from doctors how difficult it is to find a 
compatible, unrelated bone marrow donor. Her death inspired me, and her 
doctor--Dr. Jerry Barbosa--inspired me to help find a way to build a 
national bone marrow program. There were other early medical pioneers, 
like the late Dr. Robert Goode, Dr. John Hansen and Dr. Donnell 
Thomas--all who helped perfect the science of marrow transplantation 
and who assisted us in our legislative quest to establish a federal 
registry. In the early days, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, Jr. and Dr. Bob 
Graves helped find a federal home for the effort. And I must recognize 
Navy Captain Bob Hartzman who first connected us with the Navy Medical 
Command to give birth to the early program. Dr. Hartzman continues to 
direct the military program and is an invaluable scientific leader and 
advisor.
  There have been many members of Congress, past and present, who have 
stood together with me over the years to develop and fund the program 
that we reauthorize and enhance today. I thank each and every one for 
your dedication.
  We must recognize the staff and members of the board of the National 
Marrow Donor Program and the Marrow Foundation who have volunteered 
their time to establish and grow a finely tuned international registry 
program. And we must recognize the dedicated doctors and medical teams 
at transplant and donor centers around the nation who use their medical 
expertise to perform the transplants and save lives. Dr. Joanne 
Kurtzberg, the head transplant doctor at Duke University's blood bank 
center, is the epitome of a dedicated, caring and highly knowledgeable 
physician who works hard to save lives. We must recognize the 
pioneering cord blood research of Dr. Pablo Rubenstein and Dr. Cladd 
Stevens at the New York Blood Center, and Dr. Claude Lenfant, the 
former director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at NIH 
who initiated the major COBLT study on cord blood banking and 
transplantation.
  The ultimate true heroes of the national effort are the patients and 
donors. Every patient who has sought a marrow or cord blood transplant 
has helped in the overall effort to gain more scientific knowledge on 
perfecting the transplant process. Every patient helps all those who 
will follow. And every donor who has rolled up his or her sleeve to 
sign up for the national bone marrow program, or every family that has 
decided to donate umbilical cord blood, are heroes for taking part in 
giving the ultimate gift of life.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing let me again thank Chairman Barton and Mr. 
Smith for their leadership in enhancing this great national program. 
Let me thank every member of this House for their support for the 
efforts we started 18 years ago on behalf of patients everywhere. With 
your support, we will provide hope--and a second chance at life--to 
thousands of patients today and into the future.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the issue of government funding of embryonic 
stem cell research is one of the most divisive issues facing the 
country. While I sympathize with those who see embryonic stem cell 
research as providing a path to a cure for the dreadful diseases that 
have stricken so many Americans, I strongly object to forcing those 
Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to 
subsidize such research with their tax dollars.
  The main question that should concern Congress today is does the 
United States Government have the constitutional authority to fund any 
form of stem cell research. The clear answer to that question is no. A 
proper constitutional position would reject federal funding for stem 
cell research, while allowing the individual states and private 
citizens to decide whether to permit, ban, or fund this research. 
Therefore, I will vote against H.R. 810.
  Unfortunately, many opponents of embryonic stem cell research are 
disregarding the Constitution by supporting H.R. 2520, an 
``acceptable'' alternative that funds umbilical-cord stem cell 
research. While this approach is much less objectionable than funding 
embryonic stem cell research, it is still unconstitutional. Therefore, 
I must also oppose H.R. 2520.
  Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of 
decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be 
funded. Thus, scarce resources will be allocated according to who has 
the most effective lobby rather than allocated on the basis of need or 
even likely success. Federal funding will also cause researchers to 
neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal 
funds. Ironically, an example of this process may be found in H.R. 
2520; some research indicates that adult stem cells may be as useful or 
more useful to medical science than either embryonic or umbilical cord 
stem cells. In fact, the supporters of embryonic stem cell research may 
have a point when they question the effectiveness of umbilical cord 
stem cells for medical purposes. Yet, if H.R. 2520 becomes law, 
researchers will have an incentive to turn away from adult stem cell 
research in order to receive federal funds for umbilical cord stem cell 
research!
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that H.R. 810 violates basic 
constitutional principles by forcing taxpayers to subsidize embryonic 
stem cell research. However, H.R. 2520 also exceeds Congress's 
constitutional authority and may even retard effective adult stem cell 
research. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against both H.R. 810 
and H.R. 2520.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2520, an 
act that will provide for a nationwide umbilical stem cell 
transplantation system. Not only does the implementation of such a 
system pave the way for numerous potentially life saving medical 
advances, but it builds on an area of study that has a demonstrated 
track record of success. Additionally, this legislation reauthorizes 
the national bone marrow transplant system, which has been a great 
success.
  The Twenty-First Century witnessed many great scientific achievements 
and medical advances. These advances have helped to cure or mitigate 
against a number of formerly terminal conditions and diseases. One can 
only imagine the possibilities that modern technology and modern 
research offer, which will yield even greater achievements in the near 
and distant future. However, we must also be cognizant of ethical 
standards to ensure that new technology does not compete with the moral 
standards of our society. H.R. 2520 is a good start.
  Studies have demonstrated that stem cells found in umbilical cords 
may be used to regenerate human nerve, blood, cartilage, skin and 
muscle cells. Research also demonstrates that conditions such as 
leukemia and sickle cell disease could be cured by more advanced 
umbilical cord stem cell research. Cord blood cells are already being 
used to treat over 67 diseases. We need to support this research, and 
creating a nationwide umbilical stem cell transplantation system is an 
important first step to providing scientists with the resources they 
need to make advances in this field of study. This database can also be 
used to allow potential donors to patients in need of various types of 
transplants.
  H.R. 2520 provides a vehicle for promoting and enhancing promising 
scientific research in the field of umbilical stem cell 
transplantation. It certainly meets the highest standards of bioethics 
and has a track record of scientific evidence suggesting that investing 
taxpayer resources to promote this field of study will result in 
positive dividends for the health of our communities. I strongly 
support H.R. 2520, and I encourage my colleagues to vote yes for this 
important legislation.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2520, the Stem 
Cell Therapeutic

[[Page 11000]]

and Research Act of 2005. This bill is significant because it would 
encourage one of the most promising, and ethically sound, avenues of 
medical research in our time: The stem cells within umbilical cord 
blood.
  This is a matter of great interest to me, both because of the 
importance of the research itself and also because I represent the 
greater St. Louis area, which is home to the St. Louis Cord Blood Bank 
at Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital.
  Cord blood has proven successful in treating 67 diseases including 
sickle cell disease, leukemia, osteopetrosis and Diamond Blackfan 
Anemia. Just last year, a North Korean woman who had been paralyzed for 
19 years was seen walking with the assistance of a walker for the 
media. Only a month prior she had received a cord blood treatment.
  This type of extraordinary result demonstrates why we should invest 
in cord blood stem cells research and treatment.
  An early pioneer in cord blood collection and storage, the St. Louis 
Cord Blood Bank has amassed the second largest inventory of cord blood 
in the world and has provided the second largest number of cord blood 
units for transplant. I commend the work of centers like the one at 
Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital and am pleased to support his 
important legislation.
  The men and women at the St. Louis Cord Blood Bank deserve our thanks 
for their integrity, dedication and commitment to bettering human life 
through ethical research. The promise of adult stem cell research is 
both substantial and uncontroversial, which is why I urge my colleagues 
to support H.R. 2520.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I recently joined with nearly all members 
of this body in voting for H.R. 2520, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and 
Research Act.
  This important piece of public health legislation will help increase 
awareness of the possibility of using cord blood to improve access to 
blood-forming stem cell transplants and research.
  I also want to take a moment to bring attention to another aspect of 
this bill, the reauthorization of the National Bone Marrow Registry.
  Since its inception in 1986, the Registry has enjoyed strong 
bipartisan support and has been committed to helping people who need a 
lifesaving marrow or blood cell transplant.
  The National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) has successfully operated 
the National Bone Marrow Registry through a competitive contract 
renewed every 5 years.
  The NMDP maintains the largest listing of volunteer donors and cord 
blood units in the world, supports patients and their doctors 
throughout the transplant process and matches patients with the best 
marrow donor or cord blood unit.
  This past November, the NMDP celebrated an important milestone when 
it facilitated its 20,000th transplant.
  The NMDP has worked diligently to increase the diversity of the 
National Bone Marrow Registry so that all Americans have access to 
lifesaving blood-forming stem cell transplants by increasing donations 
from racial and ethnic minorities and incorporating umbilical cord 
blood units as a new source of cells.
  The NMDP also provides transplant centers with the logistical support 
patients need from the moment a physician initiates a search.
  The NMDP provides expert advice on searching the National Registry, 
coordinates the testing of cord blood units and adult donors, ensures 
that the correct cells are obtained and delivered as directed by the 
physician, and assists patients with insurance, travel and other needs 
that arise as part of the transplant process.
  These programs help doctors focus on caring for their patients and 
helps patients and their families focus on what is important--getting 
well.
  I salute the NMDP for all it does to help patients, and I am pleased 
Congress was able to pass H.R. 2520.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 2520.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________




               STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House 
of Monday, May 23, 2005, I call up the bill (H.R. 810) to amend the 
Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell 
research, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 810 is as follows:

                                H.R. 810

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stem Cell Research 
     Enhancement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

       Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     498C the following:

     ``SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary 
     shall conduct and support research that utilizes human 
     embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section 
     (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived 
     from a human embryo) .
       ``(b) Ethical Requirements.--Human embryonic stem cells 
     shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or 
     supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the 
     following:
       ``(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that 
     have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were 
     created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in 
     excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such 
     treatment.
       ``(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and 
     through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility 
     treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be 
     implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
       ``(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated 
     the embryos with written informed consent and without 
     receiving any financial or other inducements to make the 
     donation.
       ``(c) Guidelines.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to 
     carry out this section.
       ``(d) Reporting Requirements.--The Secretary shall annually 
     prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the 
     Congress a report describing the activities carried out under 
     this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including 
     a description of whether and to what extent research under 
     subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this 
     section.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Monday, May 23, 2005, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. DeGette) each will control 1 hour and 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) be given 45 minutes of the debate time 
on the pending bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) will control that time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) be allowed to control 20 minutes 
of the remaining 45 minutes that I currently have control over.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) will control that time.
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the pending bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a prepared statement I am going to put into the 
record on this bill, H.R. 810, but I am going to actually speak from 
the heart because I think that this is a very important issue.
  Most of the issues that come before this body, there is an automatic 
position on. It may be the Republican position, the Democrat position, 
the Texas

[[Page 11001]]

position, or it could be the committee position. And we come to the 
floor and we, almost by rote, say what is the particular position, and 
that is the way we vote.
  But every now and then an issue comes up that is really an issue of 
conscience. It is an issue that deserves to be thoughtfully considered, 
debated, and decided on its own merit.
  Now, there are many Members today that believe this particular issue 
is an issue that they feel so strongly about, on either side, that this 
is an easy issue for them, it is an automatic issue. They are going to 
be for it or against it for very valid reasons. But there are some of 
us, and I am in that camp today, that believe it is not an easy issue.
  I come to the floor as a 100 percent lifetime voting member on 
prolife issues, minus one vote, in over 21 years. On all the votes that 
the prolife coalition at the State and Federal levels have scored as 
scorable votes, my record until this year was 100 percent, and I voted 
the wrong way on one issue so far this year from the prolife position. 
So that is not a bad record, 100 percent minus one. And after this vote 
today, I am going to be 100 percent minus two.
  Why is that? Well, part of it is personal and part of it deals with 
tragedies in my family in the past. My father died of complications of 
diabetes at the age of 71. My brother, Jon Kevin Barton, died of liver 
cancer at the age of 44. My first granddaughter, Bryn Barton, died in 
the womb 2 days before delivery with complications of the umbilical 
cord, which had become crimped, and she was actually born dead.
  Maybe the research we are debating today could not have helped any of 
those diseases or could not have helped my granddaughter, but maybe it 
could.
  I am also going to vote for Castle-DeGette because of the future, not 
just the past. My wife Terri and I are expecting a baby in September, 
Jack Kevin Barton, named after her late father and my late brother, Jon 
Kevin Barton. He may come into this world with some disease. Hopefully 
not. I have three children that are already alive, Brad, Alison, and 
Kristin. I have two stepchildren, Lindsay and Cullen. I have three 
grandchildren that are living, Blake, Brent and Bailey Barton. Maybe 
they will live healthy, productive lives and they will never need some 
therapeutic breakthrough, but maybe they will. Maybe they will.
  Now, we just voted for an expansion of cord blood and bone marrow 
research, which is a very, very good deal, and it deals with adult stem 
cells. And maybe the breakthrough is going to come in adult stem cells. 
I hope it does. I would love it. But maybe, just maybe, it is going to 
come because of embryonic stem cells.
  Now, the President adopted a position in early 2001 that said the 
existing stem cell lines then in existence could be federally funded 
for research. They thought there were about 78 lines. It turned out 
that there were 22 they are using, there are 16 that are frozen, and 
there may be one or two more that might be used. But in any event, none 
of those lines that are currently allowed to be used for research 
purposes at the Federal level have been shown to have that breakthrough 
stem cell.
  There are 200 adult cells in the body. The hope of stem cell 
research, whether it is adult or embryonic, is that we will find that 
one perfect cell that can be replicated into any of the other cells.
  It is assumed, and it is an assumption, not a fact, that the 
plasticity of the embryonic cell is better and that there is a greater 
likelihood, although the research has only been done for the last 7 or 
8 years, that there is a likelihood there might be a greater potential. 
And I want to emphasize might be.
  So where I come down is, let us look at all the avenues.

                              {time}  1345

  We just voted for Smith-Barton-Young. Let us also vote for Castle-
DeGette and look at all of our resources. That is why I am going to 
vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to manage the time of debate on H.R. 810, 
legislation designed to expand the number of sources of embryonic stem 
cell lines that may be the subject of federally funded research. The 
bill is straightforward, yet the policy concerns surrounding this bill 
are anything but black and white. Before I yield time to my colleagues, 
I want to clarify a few of the following facts.
  What the sponsors of this bill are trying to do is create enough 
lines of embryonic stem cells to allow basic scientific research to 
move forward. Many scientists believe that once we can identify a 
perfect, undifferentiated stem call, it will lead to significant 
scientific breakthroughs and the discovery of cures for many diseases.
  Currently, there are approximately 22 lines of embryonic stem cells 
that are available for federally funded research. This number is far 
below the estimated number of stem cell lines that were thought to 
exist in August of 2001, when the President announced his stem cell 
policy. When President Bush announced that Federal research dollars 
could be used for the first time on then existing stem cells, it was 
believed that there were at least 60 viable lines of stem cells that 
could be used for this research. For a variety of reasons, not all of 
these potential lines are now available for research.
  We will also eventually need additional embryonic stem cell lines to 
make further scientific advances. In recent conversations with leading 
stem cell researchers, they indicated to me that all lines of embryonic 
stem cells eventually become exhausted. In order to produce clinical 
therapies, it is likely that researchers will also need more embryonic 
stem cell lines, of different genetic variations, than are presently 
eligible to receive Federal support.
  In addition, the majority of the existing embryonic stem cell lines 
eligible for Federal support use mouse feeder cells, which will make it 
nearly impossible for these embryonic stem cell lines to be adopted in 
clinical use. For all of these reasons, researchers believe that the 
current number of embryonic stem cell lines will have to be increased.
  It is difficult to take an ideologically pure position on this issue. 
President Bush recognized this on August 9, 2001. On recognizing the 
profound potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, President 
Bush permitted for the first time Federal taxpayer dollars to be spent 
on embryonic stem cell research.
  For my entire career in Congress, I have been a staunch defender of 
the culture of life and opposed all forms of abortion. At the same 
time, I believe we have an obligation to improve existing lives and do 
what we can to make them better in the future.
  Today, on this difficult issue, Members will need to vote their 
consciences. My decision to support this bill was a difficult one, 
which I came to only after much personal struggle and reflection. My 
decision was shaped, in part, by the painful experiences of my own 
family. We lost my brother Jon in 2000, at the age of 44, after a long 
struggle with liver cancer. My father died after suffering from 
complications resulting from diabetes.
  Let me tell you for a moment about my brother, Jon. He was younger 
than me. He and his wife, Jennifer, had two children, Jake and Jace. He 
was a State district judge in Texas. They told Jon he had liver cancer 
when he was just 41 years old. We tried everything and, in fact, his 
cancer went into remission. The next year, it came back. Jon died in 
just three months short of his 44th birthday. I offered to give him 
part of my liver, but the doctors said he was too far-gone and it 
wouldn't work. That was five years ago. Jake is now 15, and Jace is 12. 
Every time I see them and their Mom, I think of Jon and wonder what 
stem cell research could have done for our family.
  I cannot know the truth with absolute certainty, but my heart says 
that my brother and my father might be with me today if their doctors 
had access to treatments from stem cell research. Their lives were 
precious to me and to our family. I come to my decision on this vote 
because I believe in life, and in the future. If a vote today can save 
other families from losing brothers and fathers, my conscience will not 
permit any other decision.
  I fully understand that some will say I am just wrong, or blinded by 
personal emotion. Many who disagree with me are my friends, and I 
completely respect their views and their advice. They are good people, 
and good people with the same facts sometimes come to different 
conclusions. Now, a few others will say that death is simply a part of 
life. No, it is not. I do not believe that we can ever accept that 
proposition without setting out on an extraordinary and dangerous path. 
Life is to be cherished and extended, and death is to be fought and 
never accepted.
  My father and my brother died because illnesses took them. If I can 
do something to

[[Page 11002]]

cure illness and thwart death for other families, I will because I 
must. Scientists believe that expanded embryonic stem cell research 
holds the potential to find cures for diseases like cancer or diabetes. 
It is my hope that supporting this bill will mean that many other 
American families will never have to endure the suffering and loss that 
my family went through. I believe that my obligation is to help advance 
science to make human life better now and in the future, in a manner 
that is consistent with Judeo-Christian ethics.
  As we move forward with debate on this bill, my only request is that 
my colleagues try to respect one another and the deeply held beliefs on 
both sides of this very complex issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 35 minutes 
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and that he be allowed to 
yield that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Forbes). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished and 
courageous gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810, and 
I want to acknowledge the bipartisan effort that has gone into this 
legislation and the incredible grass roots movement that has built 
support for this groundbreaking medical research. It has been 
inspirational to see so many Members putting aside politics and 
partisanship to address this issue which affects the lives of millions 
of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I am one of those Americans. At age 16, I was an 
Explorer Scout in my hometown police station. One afternoon, in the 
police locker room, a gun accidentally discharged. The bullet severed 
my spinal cord, and I have been paralyzed ever since.
  This experience shapes my perspective in so many ways. Above all, it 
has given me tremendous appreciation and respect for life. My life as a 
quadriplegic is filled with challenges and obstacles, yet I am grateful 
for every minute. This gratitude has become a passion, and it has 
motivated me to help create a culture that values and protects life 
from its beginning to its end.
  To me, being pro-life also means fighting for policies that will 
eliminate pain and suffering and help people enjoy longer, healthier 
lives. And to me, support for embryonic stem cell research is entirely 
consistent with that position. What could be more life-affirming than 
using what otherwise would be discarded to save, extend, and improve 
countless lives?
  This research offers the opportunity to discover cures and treatments 
for diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, ALS, diabetes, spinal cord 
injury, and many others. But it will take not only the talent of our 
scientists, but also the support of our government to realize its full 
potential. We have a responsibility to ensure that this research 
proceeds, and it does so with ethical safeguards and strict guidelines. 
By permitting research only on excess embryos created in the in-vitro 
fertilization process, and by establishing a clear, voluntary consent 
process for donors, H.R. 810 meets this responsibility.
  Stem cell research gives us hope and a reason to believe. I believe 
one day a child with diabetes will no longer face a lifetime of painful 
shots and tests. I believe one day families will no longer watch in 
agony as a loved one with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's gradually 
declines. And I believe one day I will walk again.
  There are few moments in medical history when we can clearly identify 
a giant step forward in improving countless lives. We saw it with the 
discovery of antibiotics and the advent of organ transplants.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that adult and embryonic stem cell research is 
another of these great moments. Today we have a historic opportunity to 
make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans and for people 
around the world. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 810.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in respectful opposition to this sincerely 
conceived, but ill-founded, legislation known as Castle-DeGette, a bill 
that authorizes the use of Federal tax dollars to fund the destruction 
of human embryos for scientific research.
  As we begin this debate, I am confident we will hear the supporters 
of this bill argue in the name of President Ronald Reagan, that somehow 
this research is consistent with his long-held views on the sanctity of 
life. But it was Ronald Reagan who wrote: ``We cannot diminish the 
value of one category of human, the unborn, without diminishing the 
value of all human life.''
  The supporters will also argue that this is a debate between science 
and ideology, that destroying human embryos for research is necessary 
to cure a whole host of maladies, from spinal cord injuries to 
Parkinson's. But the facts suggest otherwise.
  As Members will hear to date, embryonic stem cell research has not 
produced a single medical treatment, where ethical adult cell research 
has produced some 67 medical miracles. Physicians on our side of the 
aisle will make the case for the ethical alternative of adult stem cell 
research, and Congress today has already voted to greatly expand 
funding in this area.
  But the debate over the legitimacy or the potential of embryonic stem 
cell research is actually not the point of this debate. We are here 
simply to decide whether Congress should take the taxpayer dollars of 
millions of pro-life Americans and use them to fund the destruction of 
human embryos for research. This debate is really not about whether 
embryonic stem cell research should be legal. Sadly, embryonic stem 
cell research is completely legal in this country and has been going on 
at universities and research facilities for years.
  The proponents of this legislation do not just want to be able to do 
embryonic stem cell research. They want me to pay for it. And like 43 
percent of the American people in a survey just out today, I have a 
problem with that.
  You see, I believe that life begins at conception and that a human 
embryo is human life. I believe it is morally wrong to create human 
life to destroy it for research, and I further believe it is morally 
wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans who 
believe, as I do, that human life is sacred, and use it to fund the 
destruction of human embryos for research.
  This debate then is not really about what an embryo is. This debate 
is about who we are as a Nation, not will we respect the sanctity of 
life, but will we respect the deeply held moral beliefs of nearly half 
of the people of this Nation who find the destruction of human embryos 
for scientific research to be morally wrong.
  Despite what is uttered in this debate today, I say again, this 
debate is not about whether we should allow research. This debate is 
not about whether we should allow research that involves the 
destruction of human embryos. This debate is about who pays for it, and 
it is my fervent hope and prayer as we stand at this crossroads between 
science and the sanctity of life that we will choose life.
  This morning on Capitol Hill I was surrounded by dozens of 
``snowflake babies,'' some 81 children who were born from frozen 
embryos, the throw-away material we will hear about today. As I spoke 
over the cries and cooing of those little fragile lives, I could not 
help but think of the ancient text: ``I have set before you life and 
Earth, blessings and curses, now choose life so that you and your 
children may live.''
  Let this Congress choose life and reject Federal funding for the 
destruction of human embryos for research.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate we are having surrounding H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act, is really one of the most fundamentally 
important debates that this body can undertake. Regrettably, this 
discussion will only last a few hours on the floor of the House of 
Representatives today.

[[Page 11003]]

  There have been no hearings on this bill or on the previous stem cell 
bill. H.R. 810 addresses the most fundamental, basic, ethical issue: 
life, and when does it begin; when should life, including human 
embryos, be open to experimentation and scientific research.
  Those of us who believe in the sanctity of life from conception to 
our last breath, find the logic of the proponents of embryonic stem 
cell research flawed. H.R. 810 allows research and science to triumph 
philosophy and values.
  This country seeks to be a world leader militarily, economically and 
scientifically, and culturally. But what about morally and ethically? 
What about leading the world in ethics and morals by declaring human 
life off limits to research and to manipulation through stem cell 
research? What about leading the world in ethics and morals by 
declaring human life from embryonic stage to old age as valued? We, as 
a Nation, believe that all life is precious and there is an ethical 
line that we as a people, as a Nation, will not cross.
  We should lead by declaring that human life, even at the embryonic 
stage, is not open to manipulation, experimentation, or research. We 
cannot mask the efforts to manipulate human life under the guise of 
science or medical research.
  You and I, each of us, we all share one thing in common: we were all 
embryos at one time. The embryos that were you and me were allowed to 
grow to become Congressmen, Congresswomen, police officers, factory 
workers, soldiers, government employees, lawyers, doctors, scientists. 
We were all embryos at one time. We were all allowed to grow. Whether 
an embryo, a human life, is or is not allowed to grow, to become a 
unique individual, is a discussion this country really should have, a 
meaningful discussion, not just a few hours of debate in this Chamber.
  It is my hope that families, individuals, couples and our children 
will have a discussion on human life and when it begins. Is an embryo 
life? At what point does an embryo become life? At what point does our 
Nation shelter life with the constitutional, legal, and governmental 
safeguards? Are there other ways to do promising medical and scientific 
research without destroying human embryos?
  This is an ethical discussion I hoped would take place in the Halls 
of Congress, in the congressional committee rooms, in homes and 
workplaces all across America. Whether it is at the watercooler or in 
the cloakroom, these ethical and moral issues should and must be 
discussed as a Nation, as a people, as a culture, and as a world 
leader. Instead, this will only be discussed for a few hours on the 
House floor.
  The other body has just gone through public, political, and 
senatorial debate on the use of a filibuster in our democracy. Because 
of this debate, a healthy discussion occurred in America. I, for one, 
do not wish to avoid the moral and ethical issues of stem cell research 
debate.
  Yesterday in a news show, the commentator asked me why not allow stem 
cell research on discarded medical waste. Is that what we have come to, 
to viewing embryos, which if allowed to grow and divide would become 
human beings, being treated as medical waste? Why are proponents of 
H.R. 810 so adamant that we do research specifically using embryonic 
stem cells? According to the proponents of this legislation, these stem 
cells are our best hope of finding cures. They can develop into all 
cells of the body. They say medical science can unlock the keys to 
life. We can cure any disease or injury. They argue we must create life 
and then kill it to unlock the mysteries of life for scientific medical 
research.
  Create and clone the building blocks of life so we can manipulate and 
experiment? Is that the line we wish to cross today? We will hear today 
about other research with adult stem cells, cord and placenta cells, 
bone marrow, fetal tissue, and unraveling our DNA through mapping of 
genome, all in the pursuit of finding medical cures for the dreaded 
diseases, illnesses, and injuries we all wish to cure. But where do we 
draw the line on medical research and say we as a Nation, we as a 
people will not cross that line? This question has not been adequately 
addressed in this legislation.
  When do embryos become life? If you read the materials, after 40 
hours, less than 2 days, the fertilized egg begins to divide and the 
embryos are checked after 40 hours. Or is it 5 days when embryos are 
called blastocysts? At this stage there are approximately 250 cells. Or 
do we allow the blastocysts to survive in a laboratory culture for up 
to 14 days and still not call them human life but blastocysts so they 
are still open to research and experimentation?

                              {time}  1400

  When does life become scientifically nonexistent?
  I ask these questions because H.R. 810 is silent on these issues. It 
does not specify how long these embryos are allowed to grow before they 
are killed--2 days, 5 days, 14 days or more. Proponents of H.R. 810 
will claim that their legislation will address the ethical manner in 
which this research will be conducted. Yet their legislation is silent 
on the ethics, other than subsection C that directs the Secretary of 
HHS to create guidelines within 60 days.
  Two presidential bioethics advisory panels have given us differing 
guidance on when and how research should be conducted. If this Nation, 
through its elected leaders, allows embryonic stem cell research, then 
we as representatives of the American people should have the courage to 
state unequivocally where we stand and answer the ethical questions 
presented before us here today. As elected leaders, we should set some 
basic guidelines, not leave the guidelines to unelected and unnamed 
administrative officials.
  I know many Members on both sides of the aisle, of all political 
philosophies, have struggled with questions of morality, questions of 
life and questions of faith this past week. Many of us have asked 
ourselves that same question, and I have concluded that this 
legislation is unethical and unnecessary.
  H.R. 810 mandates Federal tax dollars to be used to destroy human 
embryos. These embryos, if allowed to live, would grow into beautiful 
children like the snowflake children visiting the Capitol today. They 
are human life. You, I and they were embryonic stem cells that were 
allowed to grow.
  Congress should not take lightly the destruction and manipulation of 
human life. It is clear that the American public does not. Forty-three 
percent of the American public clearly opposes more Federal funding for 
human embryonic research. Fifty-three percent clearly support more 
Federal funding, according to CNN.
  As I said before, this legislation has no limits as to how long the 
embryo can grow. The National Academy of Sciences' guidelines 
recommends allowing them to grow for no more than 14 days.
  Again, this legislation is not necessary. Human embryonic stem cell 
research is completely legal today in the private sector. Embryonic 
stem cell research is eligible for State funding in several States, 
California and New Jersey, and is funded through millions of dollars in 
private research money, $100 million alone at Harvard University.
  Since August 2001, 128 stem cell lines have been created. And still 
human embryonic stem cell research is funded by the Federal Government 
today. The National Institute of Health spent $24 million on embryonic 
stem cell research in fiscal year 2004, the last year that data was 
available. Twenty-two human embryonic stem cell lines are currently 
receiving Federal funding. These lines are sufficient for basic 
research according to the NIH director. Former Secretary of Health and 
Human Services Tommy Thompson has said that these lines should be 
exhausted first before we move any further.
  Finally, embryonic stem cell research remains unproven. Not a single 
therapy has been developed from embryonic stem cell research. Instead 
of cures, embryonic stem cell research has led to tumors and deaths in 
animal studies. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) has had his 
staff scour

[[Page 11004]]

the medical journals for real proof of therapeutic benefit of embryonic 
stem cell research, but has come up empty handed. There have been zero 
published treatments in human patients using embryonic stem cells.
  While the promise of embryonic stem cells is questionable, the 
promise of adult stem cell research is being realized today. Adult stem 
cells are being used today to save lives. Recognizing this, the 
National Institutes of Health spent $568 million in fiscal year 2006 on 
adult stem cell research. Adult stem cells are being used today in 
clinical trials and in clinical practice to treat 58 diseases, 
including Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, juvenile diabetes, brain 
cancer, breast cancer, lymphoma, heart damage, rheumatoid arthritis, 
juvenile arthritis, stroke, and sickle cell anemia.
  I am pleased the House is passing legislation today, the Stem Cell 
Therapeutic and Research Act, to promote adult stem cell research. But 
we are faced now with a bill that is unethical and incomplete. H.R. 810 
says nothing about human cloning, which is still perfectly legal today. 
I introduced legislation with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) 
and Senators Brownback and Landrieu to ban all human cloning. The 
inevitable truth is that if we pass this bill today, the cloning of a 
human baby will only come sooner. There is no room for shades of gray 
on this issue. The, quote, therapeutic cloning that will result from 
this legislation will make reproductive cloning even more likely.
  We should not allow the creation of life for the purpose of 
destroying it. That is what happens with this bill.
  Let me be clear. I am committed to funding scientific research that 
will unlock the origins of disease and develop cures that can help my 
constituents. Again, 58 conditions are being treated using placental 
and adult stem cells, and we cannot begin to imagine the promising new 
treatments and drugs on the horizon. But we cannot let science leapfrog 
our ethics, our morals and our legal system. This is not a partisan 
issue, and it is bigger than a right-to-life issue.
  It is clear that adult stem cell research has opened the door to the 
dreams of lifesaving treatments and cures for our most deadly and 
debilitating diseases, but I do not believe it is time to open the door 
to more embryonic stem cell research and open the floodgates to human 
cloning.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 810.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, just speaking to the Members perhaps back in the offices 
listening, I have 820,000 constituents in Delaware, and probably more 
than a third of them have some kind of a disease that might be able to 
be benefited by embryonic stem cell research.
  That is true of the figures in the country. We have 110 million 
people who have illnesses out of the 290 million people who are living 
here. They have visited my office. They have visited your offices. 
There is not a person in this room who has not had many, many visits by 
people who have very, very serious needs, whose lives are going to be 
shortened.
  I am all for the first bill we debated today because I think it might 
help somewhat, but I have also looked at some statistics and I have 
come to realize that of the 15 leading diseases, adult stem cells 
cannot do anything about 14 of them and can do a only little bit about 
heart diseases as they deal with only blood diseases in terms of what 
they can do. Embryonic stem cell research has the ability, perhaps, to 
do much more than that.
  People are going to get up and they are going to say, well, it hasn't 
done anything yet. They were only discovered about 6\1/2\ years ago. If 
you read the vast body of research in the United States of America on 
this subject by people who are truly knowledgeable, you are going to 
learn there is more potential here than anything that has ever happened 
in medicine in the history of the United States of America. Congress 
should never, ever turn its back on this opportunity.
  How are we going to get there? How are we going to do embryonic stem 
cell research? I do not have time to go through the whole in vitro 
fertilization process except to say that we create embryos in that 
particular process. They are then frozen. They are generally used and 
well used, the 400,000 embryos which are out there, to help give birth 
to people who might not otherwise be able to have a child. But at the 
end of the process, a decision is made by the individuals that may be 
involved with that. If the decision is they no longer want that 
particular embryo, they may do a variety of things with it. They may, 
as has been discussed here, give it up for adoption. They may decide to 
have it discarded as hospital waste. That is where the vast, almost all 
of them actually go as hospital waste.
  We want to give them the opportunity to say, within that embryo there 
are stem cells which could help other people live better lives and give 
them the opportunity to be able, instead of having it put in a bag for 
hospital waste, sitting at that table, to be put over here, and the 
State to be able to do the research. That is what we need to do. We 
need to be able to develop that as rapidly as we possibly can for the 
benefit of all mankind.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act.
  I have been in public office for over 30 years and throughout my 
career, I--just like all of you--have had the opportunity to change and 
improve public policy so this country may continue to flourish on the 
principles it was founded. And the 820,000 people I represent in the 
State of Delaware are a constant reminder to me of this responsibility. 
I am their voice in the Congress of the United States.
  Some of you may be wondering why I have become so interested and 
involved in embryonic stem cell research. And frankly, the answer is 
simple--those 800,000 constituents.
  We estimated that about one-half of all visits to my office are about 
health care and about one-half of those visits are by Delawareans who 
are suffering themselves or whose family members are suffering--from 
juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, HIV and hosts of 
other dredge diseases. Year by year the groups would grow in number and 
soon we would have to get bigger rooms for our meetings.
  In the early years we would discuss the necessity of funding the 
National Institutes of Health, and I was proud to be able to support 
Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party's drive to double funding for 
the NIH. And that funding has gone toward the basic science needed to 
find cures and treatments to our most debilitating diseases. But in the 
past few years, the number one topic on these groups' minds was 
embryonic stem cell research.
  One little girl stands out in mind. I met her a few months ago at an 
event back in Delaware. Olivia was two months old when she was 
diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Her parents were first time parents so 
it is no wonder that the practice of testing her blood sugar and giving 
her insulin shots was extremely heartbreaking. Olivia is now 6 and has 
never known life without diabetes. She is the person we are fighting 
for on the floor today.
  She is one of 110 million people who are suffering that may be helped 
by stem cell research.
  I remember very clearly the difficult decision President Bush made on 
August 9, 2001 and I know how careful he was to balance the needs of 
science with his own moral concerns. At the time, the compromise--to 
allow Federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells lines that 
had already been derived--seemed quite reasonable. But as we know, 
unfortunately, the number of lines eligible for research--once as high 
as 78--is now only at 22, with the NIH saying the number of lines will 
never get above 23.
  So when Diana DeGette and I began discussing how to expand the 
President's policy in an ethical manner, I went right back to the 
speech he gave to the Nation in 2001. We wanted to be as consistent as 
possible with the ethics he laid out in his speech as we worked to 
update the policy. The legislation we are going to vote on today, H.R. 
810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which has the backing of 
the medical groups, the scientists, the research universities and the 
patient advocacy groups, mirrors the President's ethical requirements.
  I will read them to you and ask that you think about them very 
closely:
  (1) Embryos used to derive stem cells were originally created for 
fertility treatment purposes and are in excess of clinical need;

[[Page 11005]]

  (2) The individuals seeking fertility treatments for whom the embryos 
were created have determined that the embryos will not be implanted in 
a woman and will otherwise be discarded; and,
  (3) The individuals for whom the embryos were created have provided 
written consent for embryo donation and without receiving financial 
inducement. You may ask what is different--we simply lift the arbitrary 
August 9, 2001 date.
  It is also critical that we are clear about what this legislation 
does not do:
  (1) No federal funding for the destruction of embryos or human life. 
This is prohibited by law.
  (2) No federal funding for the creation of embryos for research.
  Under our legislation it is up to the couple to decide what should 
happen to their embryos. Embryos can be adopted or donated; embryos can 
be frozen for future family building; embryos can be discarded. After 
that initial decision is made, and if a couple decides to discard the 
embryos, our legislation would allow those couples to make a second 
choice--do they want to donate them to research?
  An embryo or blastocyst is about 250 cells and the inner cell mass is 
about 100 cells and that is where the stem cells come from. They are 
created in a petri dish, are about 5 days old and are the size of a 
pine head. Of the 400,000 frozen embryos in in vitro fertilization 
clinics throughout the U.S., about 2 percent are discarded annually--
that is about 8,000--11,000 embryos that could be slated for research. 
Allowing the option of donating these excess embryos to research is 
similar to donating organs for organ transplantation in order to save 
or improve the quality of another person's life.
  The bottom line is when a couple has decided to discard their excess 
embryos they are either going to be discarded as medical waste or they 
can be donated for research. Throughout this debate you will hear about 
adult stem cells and more about umbilical cord cells and how these 
types of cells are sufficient for scientists.
  This is simply not true. Umbilical cord cells are adult stem cells 
and they are limited.
  Adult and umbilical cord cells are already differentiated into the 
types of cells they are, they are difficult to harvest and grow and 
they do not exist for every tissue type. On the other hand, embryonic 
stem cells are ``master cells''--they have the potential to grow into 
any type of cell in the body, they are easier to identify, isolate, 
purify and grow and they are capable of continual reproduction.
  Listen to what the NIH has to say on this topic:

       Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater 
     developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means 
     that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent--that is, able 
     to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo 
     except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent--
     restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult 
     stem cells are thought to be.

  In 2003, 1.6 million people died of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, 
Alzheimer's, kidney disease, liver disease and Parkinson's. Of the 15 
leading causes of death, adult stem cell research only addresses one. 
Adult stem cells have been around since the 1960s. Embryonic stem cells 
were only isolated in 1998. We must explore research on all types of 
stem cells, but the reality is the only policy that is restricted is 
the Federal embryonic stem cell policy.
  The NIH is the right place to oversee this research because it can 
regulate the ethics, it provides for scientific collaboration and peer 
review and promotes publication so all breakthroughs are reported and 
all scientists have access to the latest research discoveries. Without 
NIH oversight there are no guidelines as to how this research should be 
conducted.
  The United States has always been the premier leader in biomedical 
research in our country and around the world. As science continues to 
move rapidly forward, we need to continue to lead the way but we are 
not. Why should we waste one more year, one more day, forcing millions 
to suffer because of a policy that is outdated and unworkable.
  Does this Congress really want to look back 10 years from now and say 
that we were the ones holding the treatments up? Or do we want to be 
the Congress that says, we back science, we want research to flourish 
and we played a small role in making that happen.
  Support H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and 
accelerate hope.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California 
is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, a family invests their embryos. They are 
not going to save them for 1,000 years. Some of those embryos 
cryogenically deteriorate so they are going to discard those embryos. 
Others are just thrown down the toilet because someone does not want 
them anymore.
  Those are the embryos that we can use for stem cell research, only 
the ones that are going to be thrown away. If there are 400,000, then 
we will use 400,000. If there are only 10, we will use 10 unless they 
can be adopted, which I also support in this bill.
  People say that there has been no research. If you take a look in 
animals, they have actually saved spinal cords in animals, in heart, in 
Alzheimer's, but they just have not done it in humans. There is 
potential, both for adult and embryonic stem cell.
  I have been here 15 years and I am 100 percent prolife, 100 percent. 
This is an issue of life to me.
  I had a 6-year-old in the committee that said, Duke, you're the only 
person who can save my life. Do you have a child with diabetes? Do you 
have a child with other diseases that could be prevented? Then you 
would support this. I am for life and I am for the quality of life, but 
I do not want another 6-year-old to die.
  I opposed the California bill. It went too far. I do not support 
cloning, but I want to save life. We are this close to stopping 
juvenile diabetes. There are other embryos that are tainted so bad that 
you would not implant those and they want to study those so that they 
can stop those childhood diseases. But you cannot look a child in the 
eye when the only chance they have to live is this research.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, this is a grand and glorious debate we are 
having today. Think of what we are doing. We are debating the best 
route for achieving wonderful, healing medical possibility, possibility 
that would have been unheard of not many years ago. But it is only 
possibility. By definition, good research is always about possibility, 
about the potential of finding the answers to that which we do not 
know.
  Let me share three perspectives with you today. First, that of a 
friend. This is a picture of a family I know. The mother, father and I 
trained together at the medical school in Arkansas. She was diagnosed 
with insulin dependent diabetes at age 7. She had early complications 
with retinal problems caused by the diabetes. Her husband is a doctor. 
Five years ago he had an accident and now has paralysis caused by 
spinal cord injury at the C7-T1 level. This family has hope, realistic 
hope that sometime in the many years of life ahead of them, medical 
research may give them the possibility of cure or dramatic improvement 
in her diabetes and his spinal cord injury.
  Second, as a family doctor, I practiced medicine. My patients and I 
relied on past research done by many good scientists striving in an 
ethical manner to end the harsh realities of so many diseases. I know 
some of my friends in opposition to this bill today argue that 
embryonic stem cell research is junk science. I do not share this view, 
but to those of you pondering this view today I say, let our gifted 
researchers, not us legislators, answer the unanswered scientific 
questions for us. Funded ethical research is not junk science. 
Premature conclusion is.
  Third, as patients, my wife and I have ventured into the world of 
fertility clinics. We have met doctors and nurses all working hard to 
help couples have families, and we have studied and prayed over the 
patient consent forms. The ultimate decision on what happens to 
unneeded embryos should be up to that fully informed family, and fully 
informed consent is part of this bill.
  I support this bill today. I do not know what, if anything, will come 
from this funded research. That is why we do the research.
  Please vote ``yes'' for this bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia

[[Page 11006]]

(Mr. Price), a physician for 25 years in Georgia and a member of the 
faculty at Emory University.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I know that 
respected scientists believe that misrepresentations and exaggerated 
claims in this debate are not only scientifically irresponsible, they 
are deceptive and cruel to millions of patients and their families who 
hope desperately for cures.
  It seems to me that there is one unmistakable fact. Many in our 
society have sincere, heartfelt, passionate, ethical questions, worthy 
of our respect, regarding the scientific or medical use of embryonic 
stem cells. If our goal is truly to cure diseases and help patients, 
science tells us that today the use of adult and cord stem cells has 
successfully treated or holds real potential for treating nearly 60 
diseases. The same cannot be said for embryonic stem cells, and adult 
stem cells carry none of the ethical questions or dilemma of embryonic 
stem cells.
  I support stem cell research, active, aggressive and scientifically 
based, with respect for the difficult ethical questions we face today. 
I urge my colleagues to join me in respecting science, in respecting 
ethical concerns. If we do, we will recognize that stem cell research 
and treatment of disease should actively proceed with those adult and 
cord stem cells that are providing and will increasingly provide 
excellent and exciting cures for patients in need.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), who has been a wonderful help on this bill.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to represent the University 
of Wisconsin, Madison, where Dr. Jamie Thompson and his team were the 
first to derive and culture human embryonic stem cells in a lab. These 
cells can be described as the parent cells of all tissues in the body. 
Embryonic stem cells open the possibility of dramatic new medical 
treatments, transplantation therapies, and cures.
  But at 9 p.m. on August 9, 2001, the hope and promise of this 
embryonic stem cell research was greatly curtailed. President Bush 
declared that researchers who received Federal funding could work only 
with embryonic stem cell lines created before that date and time. There 
were supposed to be 78 lines that were eligible for federally funded 
research. However, due to age, old technologies, contamination, only 22 
are useful for research today.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we tying the hands of our scientists who receive 
NIH grants or other Federal dollars to support their research? Why are 
we curtailing scientific progress in America while scientists in other 
countries rapidly seize the opportunity inherent in advancing this 
research?
  H.R. 810 creates strong new safeguards and guidelines concerning 
research on human embryonic stem cells. Strict criteria, including 
written informed consent for donation, must be met before Federal 
researchers can derive and culture new stem cell lines.
  Some Members on the other side of this debate say their constituents 
are opposed to their Federal tax dollars being used on this 
groundbreaking science. Well, I have constituents as well, like young 
Jessie Alswager of Madison, Wisconsin. Jessie has juvenile diabetes, 
and every year he comes to Washington to lobby for this research to 
move us closer to a cure. Jessie is only 8; so I do not think he pays 
taxes yet; but his mom, Michelle, sure does. And Michelle, like 
millions of other Americans who could be helped by this science, very 
much want their tax dollars spent on stem cell research.
  I urge support of the Castle-DeGette bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for yielding me 
this time.
  I ask myself this question: If we are going to deal with this debate 
on embryonic stem cell research, what are the ethics of this? One can 
go to Google and do a Google search on permissible medical experiments. 
And I did that, and I found that there is a list of 10 things that have 
to be qualifiers for permissible medical experiments on human beings. 
One is the subject must be a volunteer. The second one is there must be 
no alternative. The third one is results of animal experimentation must 
be proven successful prior to their experiments. The net result in 
death or disability cannot be accepted. The seventh one is there cannot 
be even a remote possibility of injury, disability, or death. The human 
subject must be at liberty to end the experiment. And the likely result 
cannot be injury, disability, or death. The exception is if a physician 
wants to experiment upon himself.
  Where do I find this information, Mr. Speaker? I find this 
information in the military tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, 
October, 1946, Nuremberg.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we need to remember that 
embryonic stem cell research is legal. In the absence of the Federal 
Government, the States are already taking the lead. California is at 
the forefront of establishing a robust embryonic stem cell research 
program. New Jersey has followed suit, and seven other States are in 
the process of doing so. We do not want our stem cell research policies 
left to the vagaries of State electoral politics. The Federal 
Government in general, and NIH in particular, must be involved. The 
less NIH is involved with its time-tested methods and procedures, the 
less we are assured of good ethical guidelines and scientific methods 
will be followed. Instead, we will have more and more individual States 
attempting to set up their own regulatory schemes, something they may 
or may not be equipped to do.
  Opponents argue that it is the product of a utilitarian world view, 
that somehow this is a zero-sum game, if the Members will, in which 
life is taken in order to give life. I think the strictures that are 
established by H.R. 810 negate that argument. Under this bill, Federal 
research will proceed using those embryos not used in fertility 
clinics, embryos voluntarily given that would otherwise be destroyed, 
that is, embryos that held the promise of life but are certain not to 
fulfill that promise. What we are doing is extending the potential life 
where otherwise there would be none.
  I urge passage of H.R. 810.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810. I would 
like to thank the chairman for all of his work in bringing this bill to 
the floor, and I would like to thank my leadership for allowing a vote 
on this important legislation.
  As Representatives, we are in the unique position to frequently meet 
with a wide cross-section of people, many of whom are suffering from 
debilitating diseases, injuries, and ailments. These millions of 
patients, as well as their loved ones, have a clear message for 
policymakers: we support this research and we need their help.
  Opponents of this bill have argued that we should not use Federal 
funds to pay for embryonic stem cell research. I respectfully disagree. 
The issue at hand is allowing for more pristine stem cell lines to be 
eligible for research. Scientists and researchers throughout the United 
States are constantly reminding us that the focus needs to be on the 
quality of the stem cell lines available which are eligible for Federal 
research. I would also like to state that there is no funding for the 
derivation of the lines and the lines must be ethically in accordance 
with the principles the President has laid out in his policy. We are 
undoubtedly slowing research progress by forbidding researchers from 
using Federal funds to conduct research.

[[Page 11007]]

  Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has said about embryonic stem cell 
research: ``Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell 
research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that for 
so long have been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we can turn 
our backs on this. We have lost so much time already. I just really 
can't bear to lose any more.''
  We all know that the impetus for Nancy Reagan was the battle that her 
husband, President Ronald Reagan, fought with Alzheimer's disease. The 
former first lady is not alone. Over 4.5 million Americans are affected 
by Alzheimer's. I am encouraged by scientists' claims that embryonic 
stem cells will allow for more research on Alzheimer's, including the 
possibility that they may be used to grow new brain cells to replace 
the brain tissue destroyed by the disease.
  Dana Reeves, the widow of actor and activist Christopher Reeves, sat 
with me less than 2 months ago and shared her family's devastating 
story. The potential for turning the hope for spinal cord injury into 
reality is evident, and I believe that by passing this legislation we 
can clear the way for research to move forward.
  Dana and Nancy are just two of the more visible faces of public 
figures who have asked for this research.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to please support this 
legislation, H.R. 810.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong support of the 
bipartisan Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.
  One of the few places this is really an extremely controversial bill 
is right here because the majority of Americans strongly support 
embryonic stem cell research. They want the Federal Government to fund 
research that is critical for some 128 million Americans who suffer 
from juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart 
disease, spinal cord injuries, ALS, and other diseases.
  Stem cell research is a medical issue, one that should and 
fortunately does transcend political lines and instead focuses on human 
lives. One such life is that of Clara Livingston, a 9-year-old girl 
with diabetes. During her testimony last week in a hearing in Chicago, 
Clara said, ``There are things I don't like about diabetes. I have to 
put a one-inch needle into my skin to connect my insulin pump. I don't 
like pricks or shots. I don't like having high blood sugar and not 
being able to eat. I don't like going low and fainting.'' She 
continued, ``I would like to find a cure because finding a cure will 
help make America and the rest of the world not worry about diabetes.''
  Most scientists agree that embryonic stem cell research offers the 
greatest hope to patients like Clara. There are limitations on the 
usefulness of adult stem cells when compared to embryonic stem cells. 
For example, there are no adult stem cells in the pancreas. That means 
that adult stem cell research will be inadequate in helping Clara or 
any other patients who are patients hoping for a cure for diabetes.
  While it is important to continue working with adult stem cells, it 
is also vital to fund the research funding embryonic stem cells. We do 
a grave disservice to millions of children and adults living with 
serious illness, as well as the millions who will develop these 
conditions in the future, by prohibiting promising research. This bill 
will lift these arbitrary restrictions and permit funding of cell lines 
regardless of where they were created. Federal funding guidelines 
assure that research will meet ethical standards and allow advancements 
to be made as quickly as possible. As Steven Teitelbaum of Washington 
University in St. Louis said, ``This is not a contest between adult and 
embryonic stem cells. This is a contest between us as a society and 
disease.''
  I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan 
legislation.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess), who was an OB/GYN physician for 21 years and has 
delivered over 3,000 babies and understands that an embryo is a stage 
of development.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess), member of the committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader and my chairman 
for yielding me this time.
  I do rise in opposition to this bill today.
  The debate that we are about is expanding Federal funding, not 
limiting research. There are no bona fide treatments available for 
embryonic stem cells. There is nothing in the laboratory, and there is 
certainly nothing in the clinics available to patients. Honesty is an 
important part of this debate, and I am concerned that more than a 
promise has been offered to people who are suffering and the reality is 
that those potential treatments are much more limited than they have 
been portrayed.
  The President, I think, wisely put parameters, set boundaries around 
this type of research back in 2001. Let us not forget that private 
funding for stem cell research is available today. A couple who has an 
embryo developed in an IVF clinic is perfectly free to take that embryo 
to a lab at Harvard or California and have a stem cell line developed. 
The reality is in a poll of my reproductive endocrinologists back home: 
that never comes up as an issue.
  But 22 cell lines are currently utilized. There are an additional 31 
cell lines available, per Dr. Zerhouni's testimony before our 
committee, that will be developed after the issue of animal growth 
medium becomes overcome. And there are two papers out this past week 
that indicate that that date may be quickly upon us.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we follow the money in this 
debate. The reality is if there are indeed a third of the population of 
the United States who would benefit from this research, I believe that 
the big biotech money would be jumping into this. We would not be able 
to keep them out. They would be buying patents and capturing cell lines 
for their future use.
  If there is one thing we learned in the last Presidential election, 
it was that both major candidates asserted that life begins at 
conception, and we are talking about taking a life. Remember that that 
inner cell mass that we are talking about that is taken at about 2 
weeks of development, if we put that on a timeline of a human 
pregnancy, about 5 days later we are going to see a heartbeat on a 
sonogram.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is what the debate is all about. I urge us to 
protect life and vote against this bill.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Today we in the Congress are debating the essence of human life, the 
creation of life and the destruction of life. We are debating how one's 
family's life code, their DNA, is propagated and bequeathed to the next 
generation. Each human life begins as an embryo. What concerns me, as 
someone who cherishes life and is a strong supporter of medical 
research for epilepsy, for diabetes, for spinal cord injury, for 
Alzheimer's, for so many debilitating diseases, is that this bill seems 
to be on a very fast track. It is moving through this Congress at 
record speed and not under the normal procedures we depend on to make 
informed decisions.

                              {time}  1430

  Today I rise with more questions than answers on this bill. I respect 
the advocates. I respect those that do not support the bill. But I know 
one thing: On a matter of life and death, Congress should proceed 
carefully, thoughtfully and in an informed manner. All points of view 
must be heard and not suppressed.
  Most surprisingly, this bill never had a subcommittee nor a full 
committee hearing. So my opinion today about this bill is: not yet. I 
am not yet confident that this institution has allowed for full 
dialogue to develop on a matter of such gravitas. Regardless of how you 
view the bills before us, the lack of a

[[Page 11008]]

full hearing record is most troubling indeed.
  I ask myself, why is the normal committee process subverted on a 
matter of such consequence? What do proponents have to lose? Where is 
the committee transcript that will tell us the diverging views of 
scientists on the potentiality of adult stem cell versus embryonic stem 
cell to improve life? The fact is, there is none. Some evidence 
indicates stem cell research from nonembryonic sources now has made a 
difference in treating 58 different diseases. We need to know more 
about the science.
  Then, where is the committee record that helps us struggle with the 
essential moral question of: how exactly does one destroy life in order 
to save it? Where is the committee transcript that reveals to the 
majority of Members not on the committee the ethical questions that we 
and every family should be addressing concerning the proprietary nature 
of the DNA in any embryonic cell?
  We go to great lengths as a Congress to protect intellectual property 
rights, as our Constitution requires. After all, this Nation provides 
for patents for computer software, for medical devices, for seed corn 
genomes; and yet we provide no protection for the DNA of a human 
embryo? Whose DNA will be bequeathed to the future and whose will not?
  How do we evaluate this bill when so much is missing? How do we 
evaluate which embryos should be allowed to be sent to research and how 
many to be adopted by infertile couples so those embryos can be 
developed into full human beings? Who will decide? Is it just a matter 
for the individual couple, or is there a larger, societal 
responsibility to protect life?
  The woman whose eggs are being taken, how is she legally protected? 
How is her husband or mate legally protected in this relationship? And 
what are the rights of the embryo? Where is the hearing record that 
informs us how to carefully manage any transfer of human embryos to 
research so their essential worth is recognized?
  We are told that the ethical requirements section of the bill will 
suffice, yet this section is but 156 words long. It directs that NIH 
will issue final guidelines within 60 days of passage of this bill. 
Sixty days? That is not even enough time to grow a tomato plant. I ask, 
is this realistic? And further, who will influence NIH without more 
congressional guidance?
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of money to be made in this new field of 
life science. I think Congress should know who is likely to be making 
it, especially when Federal funding becomes involved. Which biogenetic 
and pharmaceutical firms stand to benefit the most from moving this 
bill forward? Exactly who are they? Which immuno-
suppressant drug companies? Do we as Members of Congress not have a 
right to know something more from the nonexistent transcript from the 
committee?
  I find it most coincidental that last week the South Koreans doing 
research in this arena announced that they had cloned cells, making it 
appear as though, if Congress did not act today, America would fall 
behind in the world research community. I found the timing of that 
announcement just all too convenient and asked myself, which companies 
were behind it?
  In my opinion, the subcommittee and committees of jurisdiction have 
not met their responsibilities to this Congress, by abdicating their 
hearing responsibility. All we have are documents from outside 
proponents and opponents, and frankly, that is not good enough. Where 
is the hearing record to which all Members can refer which recounts the 
struggles of proponents and opponents with the ethical requirements 
that should be a part of this bill, and not merely leave it up to the 
National Institutes of Health?
  On a matter of such magnitude, where some human embryos will be 
destroyed in the hope that new cures are made possible, the Congress 
needs to be more responsible.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DeGette-Castle bill and 
remand it back to committee.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind all 
Members to refrain from using audio devices during debate.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) 
is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote today is a vote for progress, 
for reason and for sound research.
  Mr. Speaker, it is conservative to conserve, and this bill utilizes 
stem cells that have already been discarded, discarded because in most 
cases those who undergo in-vitro fertilization have excess fertilized 
cells available. Their only choice today has been for freezer storage, 
putting them up for adoption or discarding them, yes, into hospital 
medical waste.
  Now we will add a fourth option, and that is to allow these embryos 
to be used for scientific research, to find cures for diseases that 
have afflicted Americans, a large portion of Americans, that threaten 
the lives of young people. This is not about life, this is about saving 
life, and it is important that the Congress make this statement for a 
brighter future for many, many Americans.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, we do not know yet, but the possibility is 
very real that stem cell research may be the greatest breakthrough in 
the history of science. There are deep and profound moral and 
philosophic issues surrounding the research, but our government should 
be very cautious about coming down on the wrong side of science, 
especially when the scientific endeavor is designed to lengthen and 
ennoble life.
  It has been suggested here today that no breakthrough therapies have 
yet been developed with stem cell research. This is simply not the 
case. Using, for example, the microenvironment of human embryonic stem 
cells, Dr. Mary Hendricks and her team of researchers at Chicago's 
Memorial Research Center have developed a methodology to slow the 
aggressive properties of metastatic cancer cells. How in heaven's name 
can we deny the promise of such research?
  There is consensus at this time in this body and in the research 
community that scientists should not play God in attempting to clone 
human beings, but we are at a stage of human existence where there is a 
practical possibility that a blastocyst that would otherwise be thrown 
away as waste can, in a petri dish, be used to help solve these 
incredible diseases, from Alzheimer's to Parkinson's to diabetes to 
cancer.
  If one believes that life matters, the balance of judgment should be 
to carefully open the door, as this bill, led so beautifully by my good 
friends the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), does. Not to open the door is to put our 
heads in the sands and foreclose the prospect of a better life for 
many, many Americans.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the purpose of making a 
unanimous-consent request.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Castle-
DeGette amendment. I have a friend who is alive today because of stem 
cell research and injections that he has had. He would love to have 
been here today to tell you about it. He is in the bloom of health.
  Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, a very close, longtime personal 
friend of mine, John McCaffery, was diagnosed with lymphatic leukemia. 
He underwent radiation and chemotherapy treatments. But he remained 
critically ill. His doctor suggested that he have a stem cell 
transplant.
  John was fortunate enough that his brother proved to be a match. 
After causing John's

[[Page 11009]]

brother to overproduce stem cells, doctors at Strong Memorial Hospital 
in Rochester, removed the excess stem cells and put them in John. 
Unlike a painful, complicated bone marrow transplant, John received his 
stem cell transplant via an IV.
  Without advancements over the years in stem cell research, John would 
not have had the option for a stem cell transplant. Rather, he would 
have had to continue with chemotherapy treatment until the cancerous 
cells eventually took over his body and he died.
  Mr. Speaker, stem cell research saved John's life. And, I am very 
happy to report that today, John is once again leading a healthy, 
productive life.
  The U.S. has the finest research scientists in the world, but we are 
falling far behind other countries, like South Korea and Singapore, 
that are moving forward with embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem 
cells from umbilical cord blood will likely lead to treatments for some 
diseases. But this must complement, not substitute, scientific research 
on embryonic stem cells--which is much more promising and will yield to 
advancements in the prevention and treatment of almost every disease 
American families face. The United States must be on the cutting edge 
of this important research. We have a responsibility to promote stem 
cell research which could lead to treatments and cures for diseases 
affecting millions of Americans.
  Without question, the U.S. should set high standards for moral and 
ethical use of stem cells. But how can we do this, if we are not 
actively involved in the research?
  Mr. Speaker, John is one person whose life was saved by stem cells. 
There will be thousands and one day, millions more lives saved if we do 
the right thing today. I urge all my colleagues to support both adult 
and embryonic stem cell research by supporting the Stem Cell 
Therapeutic and Research Act and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
Act.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and want 
to congratulate the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) for her leadership and his 
leadership on this bill. This is, I think, one of the most important 
bills that we will consider for the welfare of people not only in this 
country, but throughout the world.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear about what this bipartisan, 
moderate bill would do and not do. This legislation, which has 200-plus 
cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, would not permit Federal 
funding for cloning; it would not permit Federal funding to create 
embryos, nor would it permit Federal funding to destroy embryos.
  This important legislation simply expands the current Federal policy 
of allowing Federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived 
after the arbitrary date of August 9, 2001, from embryos created for 
fertility treatment that would otherwise be discarded.
  Recall that on that date, President Bush announced that Federal funds 
would be available to support research on human embryo stem cells so 
long as such research was limited to existing stem cell lines. At the 
time it was believed that 78 stem cell lines were eligible. Yet today, 
as we know, only 22 such lines are available for research, and these 
lines are aged, contaminated or developed with outdated research. 
Meanwhile, there are at least 125 new stem cell lines with substantial 
potential that federally funded researchers cannot use.
  Thus, Mr. Speaker, I believe the issue before this House today is 
this: Will we foster embryonic stem cell research, research that holds 
great promise for the potential treatment or cure of diseases such as 
ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other 
diseases, and offer hope to those with spinal cord injury and other 
injuries of the nervous system, or will we stand in the way?
  I know that the opponents of this bill believe that we are ignoring 
the ethical and moral implications of such research. I do not share 
that view. But, in fact, this legislation requires the Department of 
Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health to 
issue guidelines for ethical considerations; it requires a 
determination that the embryos would never have been implanted and 
would have been discarded; and it requires the donor's written, 
informed consent.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize this is a difficult issue for many. It is, 
however, I think, an issue that the American people have made a 
judgment on. It is an issue which they, I think, overwhelmingly 
support. The polls seem to reflect that at least 60 percent of the 
Americans asked the question support this important effort. They 
believe it holds promise for them, for their spouses, for their 
children.
  We have talked much about life on this floor. It is important that we 
do so. It is important that we do so in a thoughtful and principled 
way.
  I believe that this moderate, well-thought-out, carefully constructed 
bill takes a step that America expects us to take. This is the People's 
House. I believe the people would have us pass this legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote accordingly.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. AKIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, just in response to 
what was said on the floor, this is a statement that has appeared on 
the floor, and also in print, which says that the bill before us 
prohibits Federal funding used for the destruction of embryos.
  By its very definition, it requires the destruction of embryos when 
it does the research. That ought to be very clear. The process talked 
about requires the destruction of embryos.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I rise today to oppose 
public funding for the destruction of human embryos.

                              {time}  1445

  There is actually a very simple reason for that, and that is because 
you and I were once embryos.
  Now, an embryo may seem like some scientific or laboratory term, but, 
in fact, the embryo contains the unique information that defines a 
person. All you add is food and climate control and some time, and the 
embryo becomes you or me.
  Now, there are people who want to use public money to destroy 
embryos, and they talk about this bill as being a good first step. What 
happens if we run the clock to step two or step three?
  My own daughter wrote a little story, and I will read it, about step 
three: ``I lived with 40 others in a compound supervised by cool, 
efficient orderlies. Instead of playing, I stood pondering a troubling 
dream from the night before. It was of a loving father giving his child 
a name. I have always been just 52561B.
  ``I started imagining what it would be like to be named when the lab 
technician called me down the sterile white hall to my monthly checkup. 
I was given the usual clear injection and scanned. The medic flipped 
through the images which showed my organs and wrote, `healthy, still 
usable' across the file.
  ``Several weeks later, I heard footsteps outside my cell and low 
voices. The door unlocked and I was led again into the clinic and 
placed on the stainless table, but the injection this time was amber 
colored and I immediately sensed that something was wrong. Numbness 
started spreading across my body, great agony, no breathing, and the 
table was lifted and I slid down a chute into a large, steel box with 
waste paper and garbage from the lunch room.
  ``My body now thrashed uncontrollably, but as everything grew dark, 
there was a bright figure who seemed to protect me. He looked at me 
with such love and said, `I have given you the name Tesia, which means 
``Loved of God.'''
  ``I awoke to see a wrinkled face with twinkling dark eyes framed by 
white hair. He must have seen my questioning expression. He explained, 
`You

[[Page 11010]]

were a clone being held as a source for body parts, but when a 
recipient dies, the clone is considered useless and is given a lethal 
injection. I managed to get to you before the poison finished its 
work.'
  ``I was stunned. After a pause, he said, `What shall I call you?' At 
first I was startled until I remembered. I said, `Tesia.'''
  Mr. Speaker, this building was built by our Founders on pillars, but 
not just pillars of marble. One pillar was the conviction that God 
grants life as an inalienable right, and they fought so that pillar 
would not be toppled by tyrants. And our sons and daughters fight so 
that pillar will not be toppled by terrorists. We must vote today so 
that that pillar will not be toppled by technology that is run amok.
  Oppose public funding which destroys little you's and me's, and 
oppose this harvest of destruction.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), who is a member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 810.
  I believe in the transforming and the lifesaving power of research 
and science, and I have seen firsthand how cutting-edge research can 
make a big difference in the lives of Americans who suffer with all 
sorts of diseases, and, I understand the value of federally funded 
research. I also support stem cell research.
  However, this debate is not about the merits of scientific discovery. 
There is no ban on research for the limited number of IVF embryos on 
which such research would even be possible. This debate is about 
Federal tax dollars and whether these dollars should be spent on the 
destruction of embryos, which I do not support.
  Supporters of this bill say we have nothing to lose by destroying 
existing embryos with Federal money because, after all, some of them 
will probably be discarded anyway. I would ask my colleagues to recall 
the reason why we do not conduct scientific research on Federal death 
row inmates.
  Aren't they going to die anyway? By all accounts, death row inmates 
are not innocent lives--but we don't conduct destructive experiments on 
them because it would be ethically reprehensible. We certainly don't 
dedicate taxpayer funds for that purpose.
  Those who've studied the implications of an embryonic stem cell 
research expansion know full well that Federal funding for the 
destruction of existing IVF embryos is no silver bullet for disease 
treatment. But that's how the bill will be sold on the floor today. 
H.R. 810 is merely the first step in an effort to spend federal money--
not only on the destruction, but on the creation of cloned embryos for 
research. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810 because we need 
to support studying every kind of stem cell, from cord blood to adult 
to embryonic.
  Parkinson's disease affects over 1 million Americans, and I am one of 
them. Many people think that this is a disease that mostly affects 
older citizens. That is not true. I was diagnosed when I was in my mid-
40s and Michael J. Fox, for example, was much younger than that.
  Parkinson's does not keep me from doing the things that are important 
to my life and my work, but Parkinson's does affect me every day of my 
life. There are good days and bad days, but there is still a need for 
research and for a cure.
  Parkinson's has been said to be the most curable disease that is yet 
to be cured. Scientists believe a cure is on the horizon within the 
next 5 to 10 years. They also believe that the advances in Parkinson's 
research will lead to accelerated cures for other illnesses such as 
Alzheimer's.
  Only embryonic stem cells hold enormous potential in order to treat 
these patients. Doctors treating patients with disease or injury may 
feel compelled to ease the suffering by taking every ethical avenue 
possible to find treatments and cures. These doctors are among some of 
the most talented, dedicated, and well-respected doctors in this 
country.
  Today we decide whether to free these scientists or to hold them 
captive. We will decide whether those suffering from Parkinson's, 
diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and others will have the greatest 
potential for cures, or whether they will just simply sit on the bench.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is the right message to send 
patients and doctors.
  The American people agree. Poll after poll has shown that a wider 
majority of Americans support ethical embryonic stem cell research. The 
majority of Bush supporters, for example, have voted to support this 
research. Over 90 patient organizations, scientific and medical 
societies, and universities also support this research. Some think this 
research has given false hope to patients like me. But the science is 
moving forward and, with our help, will go even further.
  This is really an exciting day for me, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate 
everyone who has helped us.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as stewards of hard-working Americans' tax 
dollars, we cannot ask our constituents to fund the killing of human 
embryos.
  Like the rest of my colleagues joining me today, I am strongly in 
support of scientific research to save and improve human life. But to 
fund Federal research on stem cells derived from killing human embryos 
is unethical and irresponsible.
  While stem cell research has never been prohibited in the private 
sector, President Bush permitted the usage of embryonic stem cell lines 
sufficient for extensive government-funded research nearly 4 years ago. 
In these 4 years, government and private research on those stem cells 
have produced nothing, cured no one; and there is no indication that 
that will change.
  In the meantime, ethical research not derived from embryos in the 
public and private sectors has helped cure almost 60 diseases. The 
private sector has proven the superiority and promise of cord blood in 
adult stem cell research by choosing to fund those areas. Let us learn 
from their example and not squander taxpayer dollars on unethical 
research.
  Mr. Speaker, we do have the power of the purse, and we cannot misuse 
it by funding the slaughter of human life.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810. Science has 
advanced rapidly since the President announced his stem cell research 
policy. These cells were just identified less than 10 years ago and, 
already, the technology is progressing by leaps and bounds. The 22 
lines currently available under the President's policy were developed 
using outdated techniques and have been contaminated, possibly skewing 
the outcome of experiments.
  Given the promise that stem cells hold, it is time to drop the limit 
on current stem cell lines and allow researchers to do what they do 
best. It is tragic to let these cells go to waste when they could help 
to relieve so much suffering. It is time to let researchers go where 
the science leads them, not where politicians dictate.
  In order to explore all of the possibilities, scientists must have 
access to all three kinds of stem cells: adult, embryonic, and those 
from the umbilical cord blood. That is why I plan to vote for H.R. 810 
and the Smith bill as well. The two are not in opposition; they are 
complementary.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 810 and for the sake of the 
millions suffering from diseases, I ask my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman

[[Page 11011]]

from the great State of Missouri, the Show Me State (Mr. Blunt), the 
distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership and the leadership of others on this debate 
today.
  This debate is defined in so many ways by the conscience of each 
Member; and as each Member comes to the floor, as each Member speaks, I 
think my colleagues can see that this debate uniquely is based on their 
own view of this and their deeply founded view of this.
  In fact, the whip's office is not real busy today, because we are not 
whipping this vote. I do not think my friends on the other side are 
whipping this vote either. Why would that be? Why would we have a vote 
on a bill like this that, based on the debate, is so important that we 
would not be trying to persuade Members? Because we feel on both sides 
of this aisle, apparently, today that this is a matter of real 
conscience. This is a matter where people can deeply disagree. This is 
a matter about the very definition of life itself.
  Because of that, I am firmly on the side of those who believe it is 
not time yet to federally fund this particular kind of research. There 
is private sector funding available. Some States like the State of 
California recently decided they would fund this in a significant way. 
Other States have decided they would totally outlaw research. So this 
is clearly an issue where the country is divided.
  The ethics of this issue, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) 
suggested earlier, are not as clear as they should be. The future 
ownership and use of this research is not as clear as it needs to be. 
The first principle of bioethics should be: first, do no harm. We are 
not at the point in this issue where we can firmly say we are not doing 
harm. We are at the point when we can say that all of those concerns 
that this research is not possible if we do not fund it with Federal 
funding are just not right. This research is possible. I do not agree 
with it myself, but I particularly do not agree that we should take the 
tax money of millions and millions of taxpayers who believe this is 
absolutely wrong and pay for this research in that way.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
for their leadership on this issue.
  Like millions of American families, my own has been impacted by the 
loss of loved ones with debilitating diseases. My grandmother, Alvana 
Carpenter, died of cancer, and my first cousin Betty Stolz, to MS. We 
lost them too soon. That is one of the reasons I have joined this 
unparalleled and growing bipartisan coalition to cosponsor H.R. 810, 
along with over 200 Democrats and Republicans in this House. People 
from the Show Me State were polled not too long ago, and three-fourths 
of them were in support of this research continuing. Just like polls 
around the country, when Nancy Reagan called to lift the Bush 
administration ban on this research in 2004, three-fourths of Americans 
have come to the support of this cause.
  There is great promise in this research. Since its isolation of the 
embryonic stem cell in 1998, research has made dramatic progress in the 
U.S. We cannot and we must not abandon our leadership role in the 
scientific community and in establishing strong ethical standards for 
this research, which are incorporated in this bill.

                              {time}  1500

  I also became involved in this debate because of the extraordinary 
citizens that have come to advocate on its behalf, advocates like 
Bernie Frank, an accomplished St. Louisian who has volunteered for the 
Parkinson's Action Network; advocates like Dr. Huskey from Washington 
University, who suffers with MS and continues her advocacy; advocates 
like Rabbi Susan Talve and her young daughter, Adina, who suffers from 
a congenital heart defect. Early stem cell research shows the potential 
to discover ways to grow new heart muscle cells.
  Mr. Speaker, the promise of stem cell research is real. Science, not 
politics, should determine the future of this vital research.
  We stand here with the tools in our hands to ease the pain and 
suffering of so many across the country and around the world. To forgo 
potential life-saving cures is simply unacceptable and unconscionable.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon), who has graduated with honors, is a physician in 
internal medicine, and also has degrees in biochemistry.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as most of my colleagues know, I 
practice general internal medicine and I still do it. I have treated a 
lot of patients with diabetes, Parkinson's; indeed, my father died of 
complications of diabetes. My uncle, his brother, died of complications 
of Parkinson's disease.
  Let us just talk a little bit about how we got here, okay? This body 
voted years ago, no Federal funding for research that involves the 
destruction of a human embryo. And President Clinton, towards the tail 
end of his administration, did an end run around the congressional 
prohibition, and they were having outside labs destroy the embryos, get 
the embryonic stem cells and send them over to NIH. And I sent the 
President a letter telling him, You are violating the spirit of the 
law, if not the letter of the law.
  When President Bush became President, a lot of us alerted him to this 
problem, and he came out with his policy. And I thought it was really 
like a Solomon-like compromise. He said, We will not allow any more 
Federal funds to be used that involve the killing of human embryos, but 
we will allow research to proceed on the existing cell lines.
  And I sit on the committee that funds this. We have funded this 
research to the tune of $60 million over the last 3 years, embryonic 
stem cell research, what you are asking for more of. And the only place 
that I can find the research results printed is, I have to go to the 
rat-and-mouse journals. And the results are bad. These things tend to 
form tumors. The plasticity that some of you extol in these embryonic 
stem cells make them genetically unstable. They tend to form tumors. We 
call them teratomas in the medical profession. They grow hair and they 
grow teeth. They are genetically unstable.
  Meanwhile, on the adult stem cell line it is breakthrough after 
breakthrough after breakthrough. Indeed, the gentlewoman from Colorado 
said in her opening statement, there is no, no scientific evidence that 
will show that cord blood or adult stem cells will cure Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's or Type 1 diabetes.
  Parkinson's disease was successfully treated 6 years ago in Dennis 
Turner using an adult stem cell. He had an 80 percent reduction in his 
symptoms. This was described at the American Association of 
Neurological Surgeons annual meeting in April of 2002.
  In 2003, Science-published Harvard researchers announced they had 
achieved a permanent reversal of diabetes in mice. This is now under 
human clinical trials today, while we speak. By the way, they tried to 
repeat that study using embryonic, mouse embryonic stem cells and it 
failed. And this lady was in a wheelchair and she can now stand up with 
adult stem cells.
  We do not need this bill. It is ethically wrong. We should be voting 
``no.''
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to recognize the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) if the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) also wants to recognize him at this time. I yield him 1 
minute.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts) is recognized for 3 minutes.

[[Page 11012]]


  Mr. PITTS. 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.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey), I would just yield a minute to myself to respond to 
a couple of comments.
  First of all, there is a misconception here. Under the Castle/DeGette 
bill, no public funds are used for embryo destruction. Current law 
precludes that and we keep that under our bill.
  Secondly, we are not spending $60 million through the NIH through 
embryonic stem cell research. Last year it was really $25 million, and 
the reason is because the President's policy, issued in August of 2001, 
has not worked. Instead of 80 or 90 stem cell lines, we only had around 
19 to 22 stem cell lines. And of those lines, all of them were 
contaminated with mouse ``feeder'' cells, and many of them were not 
available to researchers here in country. That is why we have to 
ethically expand embryonic stem cell research.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 810, 
and I rise in strong support of this critical legislation.
  My colleagues, what an extraordinary moment we have before us. 
Embryonic stem cells have the potential not just to treat some of the 
most devastating diseases and conditions, but to actually cure them. At 
issue here is the fundamental value of saving lives, a value that we 
all share regardless of race, culture or religion.
  But this promise exists only if researchers have access to the 
science that holds the most potential, and are free to explore, with 
appropriate ethical guidelines, medical advances never before imagined 
possible.
  I also sit on the committee that funds the National Institutes of 
Health with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). I am not a 
scientist, I am not a doctor. But as I sit on that committee and we 
hear the testimony, one after another, of people who are suffering, who 
have lost their loved ones, who are on the verge of losing another 
loved one, look at the 200 major groups who are supporting this 
legislation. And let us listen to them.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 810, and I rise in strong 
support of this critical legislation.
  My colleagues, what an extraordinary moment we have before us. 
Embryonic stem cells have the potential not just to treat some of the 
most devastating diseases and conditions, but to actually cure them. At 
issue here is the fundamental value of saving lives--a value that we 
all share regardless of race, culture, or religion.
  But this promise exists only if researchers have access to the 
science that holds the most potential, and are free to explore--with 
appropriate ethical guidelines--medical advances never before imagined 
possible.
  There is no question that scientific advancement often comes with 
moral uncertainties. We should and have ensured that difficult ethical 
and social questions are examined and debated before passing this 
legislation. In my judgment we now have a moral obligation to pursue 
each opportunity and provide crucial funding, support and oversight for 
this critical research.
  Like many of you, I believe that strong guidelines must be in place 
with vigorous oversight from the NIH and Congress before allowing 
federally-funded embryonic stem cell research.
  With appropriate guidelines we can ensure that the research with the 
most promise for medical achievement can be fully realized. While adult 
stem cells have yielded important discoveries, the evidence from 
scientists themselves suggests they don't have the same potential as 
embryonic stem cells.
  The legislation before us today would strengthen the standards 
guiding embryonic stem cell research and would ensure that embryos 
originally created for the purpose of in vitro fertilization could be 
made available for research only with the consent of the donor. Let me 
be clear. This legislation retains the current restrictions on creating 
human embryos for the purpose of research.
  So today I ask my colleagues to be as determined to find a cure as 
science allows us to be. With the appropriate guidelines in place, we 
are closer than ever to remarkable discoveries and on the brink of 
providing hope to millions of individuals who otherwise have none.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 810.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just have to respond to the comments by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette). She must be reading a 
different bill. That is what this whole argument is about. The 
gentlewoman says that no Federal funds can go to destroying an embryo 
in order to have research. She just said that. That is what this whole 
bill does is to allow funding of embryonic stem cell research, and in 
order to do that research, you have to destroy the embryo.
  In fact, if the gentlewoman would like, I would be willing to 
entertain a unanimous consent request that if, indeed, that does not 
happen in her bill, I will be glad to accept it and I will vote for the 
bill. That is the whole notion of what is going on here.
  It is not true to say that her bill does not allow Federal funding 
for destruction of embryos.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our chairman, and also 
thank the leader.

[[Page 11013]]

  You know, I believe that everybody engaged in this debate today means 
well, and this is one of those great debates that we have on this 
floor. It is full of passion. But this is not a debate about passion. 
It is not a debate about style. This is a debate about substance. And 
the substance of this debate is life, clear and simple. You know, there 
is a fact on this, also, I think we ought to look at.
  While we do not know where embryonic stem cell research might lead 
us, we do know that engaging in this form of research would require 
ending a human life for the purpose of experimentation. And that is 
something that I do not think any of us want to sanction. And in my 
opinion, we would be giving away our humanity, our sense of ethics, for 
the mere hope, the mere hope that this form of research would someday 
yield results.
  Meanwhile, H.R. 810, the bill that is under discussion diverts funds 
from research that has proven results, from research that does not 
require us to look the other way while human life is purposely ended.
  Adult stem cell research has made great leaps. We have heard about 
that today. Cord blood research has made great strides. We have heard 
about that also today. And we hear that by using islet cells from 
living donors or adult brain cells instead of embryos, there is a 
potential to cure diabetes.
  I think we should all vote ``no'' on H.R. 810. We should stop and 
look at the substance of the debate.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, critics of embryonic stem cell research 
maintain that it is wrong to promote science which destroys life in 
order to save life. As the leading prolife legislator in Washington, 
Senator Orrin Hatch put it, since when does human life begin in a petri 
dish in a refrigerator?
  To reduce this issue to an abortion issue is a horrible injustice to 
100 million Americans suffering the ravages of diabetes, spinal cord 
paralysis, heart disease, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, cancer, 
MS, Lou Gehrig's disease and other fatal and debilitating diseases.
  I met with researchers from four of the main stem cell institutes in 
America. As one prominent researcher told me, and I am quoting, ``The 
real irony of the President's policy is that at least 100,000 surplus 
frozen embryos could be used to produce stem cells for research to save 
lives. But instead, these surplus embryos are being thrown into the 
garbage and treated as medical waste, thrown into the garbage and 
treated as medical waste.''

                              {time}  1515

  Only 22 of the 78 stem cell lines approved by the President remain 
today.
  As another leading researcher said, ``This limit on research has 
stunted progress on finding cures for a number of fatal and 
debilitating diseases.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is too late for my beloved mother who was totally 
debilitated by Alzheimer's disease which killed her. It is too late for 
my cousin who died a tragic, cruel death from juvenile diabetes while 
still in his 20s; but it is not too late for the 100 million other 
American people counting on us to support funding for life-saving 
research on embryonic stem cells.
  Let us not turn our backs on these people. Let us not take away their 
hope. Let us listen to respected pro-life colleagues and friends like 
Orrin Hatch, former Senator Connie Mack, former Health and Human 
Services Secretary Tommy Thompson when they tell us this is not an 
abortion issue. We should support embryonic stem cell research.
  Mr. Speaker, critics of embryonic stem cell research maintain it is 
wrong to ``promote science which destroys life in order to save life.''
  As the leading pro-life legislator in Washington, Sen. Orrin Hatch 
put it, ``Since when does human life begin in a petri dish in a 
refrigerator?''
  To reduce this issue to an abortion issue is a horrible injustice to 
100 million Americans suffering the ravages of diabetes, spinal cord 
paralysis, heart disease, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, cancer, 
multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease and other fatal, debilitating 
diseases.
  I have met with medical researchers from the University of Minnesota 
Stem Cell Institute, the Mayo Clinic, the National Institutes of Health 
and Johns Hopkins University. As one prominent researcher told me, 
``The real irony of the President's policy is that at least 100,000 
surplus frozen embryos could be used to produce stem cells for research 
to save lives. Instead, these surplus embryos are being thrown into the 
garbage and treated as medical waste.''
  Only 22 of the 78 stem cell lines approved by the President in 2001 
remain today. As another leading medical researcher said, ``This limit 
on research has stunted progress on finding cures for a number of 
debilitating and fatal diseases.''
  Mr. Speaker, the scientific evidence is overwhelming that embryonic 
stem cells have great potential to regenerate specific types of human 
tissues, offering hope for millions of Americans suffering from 
debilitating diseases.
  Mr. Speaker, it's too late for my beloved mother who was totally 
debilitated by Alzheimer's disease which led to her death. It's too 
late for my cousin who died a cruel, tragic death from diabetes in his 
20's.
  But it's not too late for 100 million other American people counting 
on us to support funding for life-saving research on stem cells derived 
from donated surplus embryos created through in vitro fertilization.
  Let's not turn our backs on these people. Let's not take away their 
hope. Let's listen to respected pro-life colleagues and friends like 
Senator Orrin Hatch, former Senator Connie Mack and former HHS 
Secretary Tommy Thompson when they tell us this is not an abortion 
issue.
  Let's make it clear that abortion politics should not determine this 
critical vote.
  Embryonic stem cell research will prolong life, improve life and give 
hope for life to millions of people.
  I urge members to support funding for life-saving and life-enhancing 
embryonic stem cell research.
  The American people deserve nothing less.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in 1999 young Tessa Wick was diagnosed with 
juvenile diabetes. She began the laborious process which changed her 
life and she dedicated herself to doing everything that she possibly 
could to ensure that no one would have to suffer as she has.
  During that period of time, she has worked to raise large sums of 
money. She has testified before the United States Senate, and last 
Friday her father told me that she said to him not a lot has been 
accomplished yet. We have not yet found a cure. And her father said to 
me that we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that we 
do find a cure. We are all supportive of umbilical cord research, but I 
believe that it is proper for us to pursue embryonic stem cell 
research, Mr. Speaker.
  In a week and a half, we mark the first anniversary of Ronald 
Reagan's passing. Everyone knows how passionately Nancy Reagan feels 
about the need for us to pursue this research. I believe it is the 
appropriate thing to do.
  Now, there are no guarantees. We all know there are no guarantees at 
all, but passage of this legislation does provide an opportunity for 
hope, hope that we will be able to turn the corner on these 
debilitating diseases from which so many people suffer. And so I hope 
very much that we can pursue a bipartisan approach to this important 
measure. And while I am concerned that there is disagreement with the 
President of the United States, I hope that we will be able to, at the 
end of the day, work out a bipartisan agreement that will include the 
President of the United States in this effort.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. 
And just to be clear once again during this debate, this bill limits 
the use of only those embryos that will be discarded or destroyed from 
in vitro fertilization clinics with the consent of the donors.
  I rise in support of this legislation not because it promises cures 
for diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries,

[[Page 11014]]

Alzheimer's, but because it gives us yet another opportunity to 
discover cures for these ailments. Adult stem cell research, yes, let 
us do it. Cord blood research, absolutely. But let us also allow the 
Federal Government to get more involved in embryonic stem cell 
research.
  The University of Wisconsin has been at the forefront of this 
research; yet our researchers are being held back because of current 
Federal policy. We are already falling behind the rest of the world in 
this research in light of South Korea's recent announcement last week. 
But it is precisely because the other countries are moving forward that 
makes our involvement all the more necessary. I believe that we as the 
leader of the Free World must provide important leadership on the 
ethical parameters, the ethical constraints that this research 
requires.
  Support this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on all sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has 7\1/2\ minutes. The gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
has 34 minutes. The majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), has 27 minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has 17 
minutes. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) has 12\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that it has been said that 
there are 100,000 embryos available for research. I guess they want to 
add another portion to their bill requiring parents to give their 
embryos up for research because at the present time there are only 2.8 
percent of the parents that have allowed or have designated their 
embryos to be used for research. That means there are only 11,000 
available for this research.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, I 
support aggressive stem cell research and the judicious application of 
stem cells to mitigate and to cure disease. That is why I sponsored the 
Stem Cell Therapeutic Research Act of 2005 and I have been pushing it 
for almost 3 years. That is why those of us who oppose H.R. 810 
strongly support pouring millions of dollars into Federal funds to 
support ethical stem cell research to find cures, to alleviate 
suffering, to inspire well-founded hope and to do it all in a way that 
respects the dignity and sanctity of human life.
  I strongly oppose the Castle bill, however, because it will use 
Federal funds to facilitate the killing of perfectly healthy human 
embryos to derive their stem cells. Human embryos do have inherent 
value, Mr. Speaker. They are not commodities or things or just tissue. 
Human embryos are human lives at their most vulnerable beginning 
stages, and they deserve respect.
  Parents of human embryos are custodians of those young ones. They are 
not owners of human property, and the public policy we craft should 
ensure that the best interests of newly created human life is protected 
and preserved.
  The Castle bill embraces the misinformed notion that there is such a 
thing as left-over embryos, a grossly misleading and dehumanizing term 
in and of itself, that they are just going to be destroyed and thrown 
away and poured down the drain. That is simply not true.
  The cryogenically frozen male and female embryos that the genetic 
parents may feel are no longer needed for implanting in the genetic 
mother are of infinite value to an adoptive mother who may be sterile 
or otherwise unable to have a baby.
  Mr. Speaker, just one adoption initiative, the Snowflakes Embryo 
Adoption Program, has facilitated the adoption of 96 formerly frozen 
embryos with more adoptions in the works. I have met some of those 
kids. They are not leftovers, even though they lived in a frozen 
orphanage, perhaps many of them for years. They are just as human and 
alive and full of promise as other children. Let them be adopted, not 
killed and experimented on. They are not throwaways.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the issue of embryonic stem cell research 
places humanity on the frontier of medical science and at the outer 
edge of moral theology.
  On the side of science there is much hope, even expectation that 
extraordinarily effective therapies will be developed due to a wide 
range of maladies from diabetes to Parkinson's, spinal cord injury and 
a host of others. Progress has been achieved in the laboratory in 
animal studies and in human application. Much has yet to be learned, 
however, about adverse outcomes, which is why scientists proceed 
cautiously without overpromising and with respect for moral 
considerations of their research.
  The latter gives me the greatest pause. An editorial in America 
Magazine said it well: ``The debate over embryonic stem cell research 
cannot be fully resolved because it is ignited by irreconcilable views 
of what reverence for life requires.''
  Let us recall Louise Brown, the first test tube baby. Her life began 
as a single cell, fertilized egg, in vitro. There are many leftover 
potential Louise Browns, potential human beings as cryogenic embryos 
conceived in the laboratory. Are they to be discarded or, can they be 
ethically used for stem cell research? That is the moral theology issue 
that we must resolve.
  I cannot get over the reality that human life is created in creating 
an embryo, whether in vitro or whether in utero. Each of us has to 
decide the morality of this unique aspect of the issue. But I cannot 
get over the moral theology underpinning of this extraordinary research 
on the frontier of science that we are tinkering with human life. And 
we must not tinker further. We know not where we head. It is between 
God and us. Let us resolve any uncertainty in favor of life.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, every invention, each new scientific 
concept, every technical advance in the history of mankind has been 
challenged and analyzed and debated, and properly so. Change makes us 
uncomfortable, forces us to design new paradigms; but in the final 
analysis, it is man's fundamental obligation to use science for the 
betterment of mankind.
  In this instance, we are called upon to heal diseases that have 
plagued and bewildered us for centuries. It would be unconscionable and 
irresponsible should we fail to live up to our obligation in this 
critical matter.
  The moral and ethical question is this, do we destroy embryos, simply 
discard them, embryos that will never be implanted in a womb but which 
can advance stem cell research to cure historic illnesses?
  The answer is, no, we should move forward with important scientific 
research, forward movement which will be enhanced in a measured way by 
passage of the measure before us.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the distinguished subcommittee chairman of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 810, which I 
believe promotes human embryonic stem cell research at taxpayers' 
expense.
  Now, we have already spent $60 million. The gentlewoman from Colorado 
(Ms. DeGette) says, no, it is not $60 million; it is $25 million. But 
we have spent a lot of money, and I think $60 million is the right 
number.
  The gentlewoman says no government taxpayers; money will be used. 
Once a human stem cell is destroyed, who pays for the research 
thereafter? The U.S. Government does. The taxpayers do.
  I remind my colleagues that despite all this money, embryonic stem 
cell research has not resulted in any documented success whatsoever as 
compared to the astounding success of adult stem cells.

[[Page 11015]]

  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) pointed out he could not even 
find any success. He had to go to some obscure manuals publications to 
find notice of even the experiments. I also notice that there is no CBO 
estimate on this legislation H.R. 810. How much will this bill cost? We 
do not know.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Nearly 4 years ago, in August 2001, President Bush announced his 
Executive order limiting Federal funding to studies on existing cell 
lines.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate we are having today is about slippery-slope 
fears come tragically true. But the slope can get far more steep from 
here.
  Just last week, it was reported that scientists in South Korea 
created scores of cloned human embryos that they then destroyed to 
produce 11 stem cell lines. The age of cloning is upon us.
  Also recently in the news is the creation of man-animal hybrids, or 
chimeras, using animal sperm and human eggs, or human sperm and animal 
eggs.
  The apocalyptic creations are the inevitable result of what happens 
when Man and government believes it can foster good medical ends from 
ethically dubious means.
  It is bad enough that our government allows embryonic stem cell 
research, or that we have not yet outlawed cloning. The least that we 
can do is prevent the further spending of taxpayer dollars on these 
ill-advised experiments.
  Mr. Speaker, had either, or both, of the respective stem cell 
research bills appearing before us for debate and been ruled amendable, 
I had intended to offer an amendment regarding another alternative to 
embryonic stem cell research: stem cells from teeth.
  Another promising field of stem cell research comes from our very 
teeth: stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth, SHED, aka 
``baby'' teeth. Last week a constituent of mine, Marc W. Heft, DMD, 
PhD, Professor and Interim Chair, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial 
and Diagnostic Sciences of the College of Dentistry at the University 
of Florida, pointed this out to me. The intramural program of the 
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, IDCR, of the 
National Institutes of Health, NIH, has been a leader in this exciting 
line of research. On April 21, 2003, NIH scientists reported that for 
the first time, ``baby'' teeth, the temporary teeth children begin 
losing around their sixth birthday, contain a rich supply of stem cells 
in their dental pulp. The scientists said that ``this unexpected 
discovery could have important implications because the stem cells 
remain alive inside the tooth for a short time after it falls out of a 
child's mouth, suggesting the cells could be readily harvested for 
research. According to the scientists, who published their findings 
online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 
the stem cells are unique compared to many ``adult'' stem cells in the 
body. They are long lived, grow rapidly in culture, and, with careful 
prompting in the laboratory, have the potential to induce the formation 
of specialized dentin, bone, and neuronal cells. If followup studies 
extend these initial findings, the scientists speculate they may have 
identified an important and easily accessible source of stem cells that 
possibly could be manipulated to repair damaged teeth, induce the 
regeneration of bone, and treat neural injury or disease. ``Doctors 
have successfully harvested stem cells from umbilical cord blood for 
years,'' said Dr. Songtao Shi, a scientist at NIH's National Institute 
of Dental and Craniofacial Research, NIDCR, and the senior author on 
the paper. ``Our finding is similar in some ways, in that the stem 
cells in the tooth are likely latent remnants of an early developmental 
process.'' This article is titled, ``SHED: Stem cells from human 
exfoliated deciduous teeth,'' and the authors are Masako Muira, Stan 
Gronthos, Mingrui Zhao, Bai Lu, Larry W. Fisher, Pamela Gehron Robey, 
and Songtao Shi.
  In addition to the studies of stem cells from dental pulps of 
deciduous, ``baby'' teeth, there are ongoing studies of stem cells from 
the periodontium, the region where teeth connect to bone. July 8, 2004, 
again, NIH scientists also say these cells have ``tremendous 
potential'' to regenerate the periodontal ligament, a common target of 
advanced gum--periodontal--disease. The enthusiasm is based on followup 
studies, in which the researchers implanted the human adult stem cells 
into rodents and found most of them had differentiated into a mixture 
of periodontal ligament--including the specific fiber bundles that 
attach tooth to bone--and the mineralized tissue called cementum that 
covers the roots of our teeth.
  While most of this work is coming out of the intramural program of 
NIDCR, Dr. Heft shared with me that two involved extramural scientists 
are Dr. Mary MacDougall, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at 
San Antonio--also President of the American Association for Dental 
Research--and Dr. Paul Krebsbach, University of Michigan.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we continue to foster existing, 
promising, stem cell research that is regenerative, not destructive.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
and patient gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810. Our 
research policies should be decided by scientists and doctors at the 
National Institutes of Health and not by Karl Rove and self-appointed 
religious gurus.
  If you believe it is morally superior to discard a single cell in a 
freezer rather than to use it to help millions of Americans with 
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes, and you are asked to donate an 
embryo, then by all means refuse to do so. But do not tell my 
constituents that we cannot alleviate their suffering because it might 
offend modern-day Pharisees.
  Do not tell my constituent Don Reed and his son Roman, who is 
paralyzed from a high school football accident, that scientists working 
on stem cell research in California will not be able to collaborate 
with the NIH.
  Many in government already think they have the right to tell you whom 
you can marry, what kind of birth control you can use and how you die. 
Now they think their moral superiority extends to the single cell 
level. Beyond my outrage at this arrogance, I am saddened by this 
country's precipitous decline in the estimation of the rest of the 
world.
  If this bill does not pass and scientists of the world meet to 
discuss this rapidly advancing field, many of our key researchers will 
be stuck here working with the few stem cell lines that are considered 
inoffensive.
  The Flat Earth Society will tell you that the U.S. has to show moral 
leadership, and just because the overwhelming majority of the world's 
scientific community supports research, it does not mean it is the 
right thing to do.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not need a lecture from the majority 
leader on moral and ethical leadership. I do not look to those that 
will not acknowledge the existence of global warming for scientific and 
ethical leadership. I do not think the politicians who so eagerly 
decided they knew what was best for Terry Schiavo know much about life, 
dignity, or suffering.
  I stand proudly with millions of Americans on behalf of this 
country's tradition of scientific leadership, and I urge a ``yes'' vote 
for H.R. 810.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
810. This bill, which we have already heard today, would reverse the 
embryonic stem cell policy instituted by the President of the United 
States in 2001, and I believe it is very misguided, in my opinion.
  I wish to thank the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for their work on 
this legislation against H.R. 810. They have already outlined many of 
the reasons why the bill should be defeated, but I would like to share 
some additional thoughts.
  First, let me say that good people can disagree on this issue. 
However, what we are discussing today is the Federal funding of the 
embryonic stem cell. According to the statement of administration 
policy this morning, the administration strongly opposes passage of 
H.R. 810. The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for 
research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos to 
obtain stem cells, overturning the President's policy that supports 
research without promoting ongoing destruction.
  There are other vast financial resources available to fund this 
controversial issue. Therefore, I urge my

[[Page 11016]]

colleagues to vote against and not allow embryos to be killed for 
Federal funding research that is ethically and scientifically 
uncertain.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), a member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
  Mr. FERGUSON. 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.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something. I am actually not sure that 
those who oppose this bill understand what this bill really does.
  In 1995, two Members of Congress, Mr. Dickey and the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), inserted language in the appropriations bill, 
which is there every year and has been there every year I have been in 
Congress, and it says: ``No Federal funds shall be used to create or 
destroy embryos.''
  Now, those on the other side of this debate say they do not think 
Federal funds should be used for this research, even though by their 
own admission the majority of Americans support this research. And so 
here is what this bill does, and maybe once I explain it, everyone will 
want to vote for it.
  What it says is, People who go to in vitro fertilization clinics, 
there are leftover embryos as part of the process. They can decide one 
of two things: Number one, do they want to not discard the embryos and 
either donate them to other couples, and they can be these snowflake 
children, or to store them in a freezer? Or the donors can decide if 
they want to throw them away. Or do they want to donate them to 
science? It is their decision with informed consent.
  Now, if they decide to donate them, then what would happen would be 
the embryos would go to a clinic where a stem cell line would be 
developed from the embryo with private funds. No Federal funds. The 
only Federal funds used under the Castle/DeGette bill are Federal funds 
to then develop those embryonic stem cell lines.
  Just as the President's executive order in August of 2001 allowed 
stem cell lines to be researched with Federal funding, but he limited 
those lines, we are allowing more of those lines.
  So no embryos will be destroyed with Federal funds. I hope that 
clarifies the situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I have never seen such a well-attended 
debate, which shows the importance of this issue; and I rise today on 
behalf of my father who died of Parkinson's Disease. I also rise today 
on behalf of the millions of Americans like me who have watched their 
loved ones battle the ravages of some dreaded disease.
  I ask my colleagues, How many more lives must be ended or ravaged 
until our government gives researchers the wherewithal to simply do 
their jobs?
  Although there are no guarantees, many scientists have told me that 
embryonic stem cell research offers the best and only hope to discover 
a cure for many, many dreaded diseases. Embryonic research offers 
scientists the opportunity to extend life and the quality of life for 
future generations of Americans.
  As we are debating, other countries, other States, other people are 
moving forward with research with all speed. We should pass the 
DeGette/Castle bill. Life is too precious to wait.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act of 2005. As a founder and co-chair of the 
Congressional Working Group on Parkinson's Disease, I support this 
legislation that will expand the number of stem cell lines that are 
available for federally funded research. I believe this bill will 
reopen the doors to scientific inquiry, allowing us to be able, once 
again, to utilize embryonic stem cells while adhering to strict ethical 
guidelines.
  I am and continue to be an opponent of human cloning. However, I 
recognize that we must move forward with ethical research that could 
lead to new drug therapies. We owe this to those suffering from 
Parkinson's disease, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and Lou Gehrig's 
disease. And we owe this to scientists who are eager to explore new 
frontiers of science and medicine, but who are restrained by Federal 
restrictions.
  Mr. Speaker, I have met with doctors, scientists, and researchers in 
my district's leading medical institutions who warn of a ``brain 
drain'' as their best and brightest relocate to places where funding 
for embryonic stem cell research is not restricted.
  I have spoken with lawmakers in the State of New York, who have 
garnered $1 billion in embryonic stem cell research funding, but 
without Federal funding, stem cell research will move forward without 
crucial oversight and guidelines.
  I have been persuaded by directors at the National Institutes of 
Health who have spoken out against the White House policy on stem 
cells.
  And I have been moved by the pleas of my constituents who are eager 
to find cures for suffering loved ones.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a mandate.
  In 2003, over 900,000 Americans died of heart disease and more than 
550,000 succumbed to cancer. I am sure that many in this Chamber have 
seen friends suffer through the misery of cancer and the indignities of 
chemotherapy. Who among us has not had a parent or grandparent look at 
us with vacant eyes because Alzheimer's has stolen their memory away 
from them? Too many of us have watched as our children with Juvenile 
Diabetes hold back tears as they give themselves insulin injections 
each day. Mr. Speaker, it does not have to be this way. Healing our 
children, family, and friends is a bipartisan issue. In fact, it is a 
moral imperative.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

[[Page 11017]]


  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me 
this time, and I am rising in opposition to the legislation that would 
fund the destruction of embryos in order to take the stem cells for 
research.
  There are a number of reasons that I oppose the bill. The very first 
one, though, is one of the statements we keep hearing over and over 
again from those who support the bill, and that is that these embryos 
would just be discarded. This morning, I met several families, parents 
with young children who are here in Washington. These children were 
just like every other child, but they were different. And they were 
different because these children are the snowflake babies.
  They have been referred to a little bit today, but for those just 
joining the argument, the snowflake babies are born from what would 
have been discarded embryos in fertilization clinics. It is important 
that we know this, because it is not, no option, that these embryos 
would be discarded or tossed aside.
  It is true these embryos are often adopted. And, in fact, the 
children I met today were wonderful evidence of that. It looks like 
these embryos do not have to be discarded. All they needed was a mother 
and 9 months.
  We do not have to choose between embryonic stem cell research and 
cord blood, assuming that only embryonic can solve problems. And, in 
fact, there is no proof that embryonic stem cell research can be 
successful. This list on the left on this chart shows all the different 
treatments currently using adult stem cells. On the right is the list 
of success with embryonic stem cells. It is a pretty empty list.
  I encourage my colleagues to reject the false promise of embryonic 
stem cell research and reject this legislation.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I come from Florida, 
and a lot of people think that only retirees and seniors live in 
Florida, but I want to put a face on a couple that was very successful 
with in vitro fertilization. They are 47 years old. They had a daughter 
born as a result of in vitro fertilization. The child was born with 
multiple heart problems and had to have three surgeries before she was 
2 years old.
  This couple believes that far more good can come from donating the 
remaining embryos for research. They have decided not to have any more 
children. And ultimately what we have not heard here is what the 
American people want. This is a couple that wants to be able to donate 
the embryos, which certainly they can do now, but they also want to 
have Federal research dollars go toward this.
  This really is all about where taxpayer dollars go. And when you look 
at the huge book of pork that comes out every single year, when we go 
back home and say to our constituents, would you rather have some of 
this money going to, for example, some foreign countries that regularly 
turn their backs on us, or would you like to see some significant 
research done from embryonic stem cells that would be disposed of, the 
majority of our constituents are clearly going to say, use the money 
for significant research.
  We have to remember that this is not an either/or. Certainly the 
umbilical cord research is a great science. We need to move forward 
with that as well as the embryonic stem cell research.

                              {time}  1545

  Remember, for this couple and her husband deciding to donate those 
embryos, they believe they will be saving other children's lives. They 
believe they will be helping an aunt who has early-stage Alzheimer's. 
They believe they will be able to help spinal cord injury victims. That 
is what this research holds the potential for. No, we do not have the 
cures yet; but unless we go forward, we never will. I fully support the 
Castle/DeGette bill, and hope other Members do, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. I stand with 200 of America's 
most respected research organizations in support of this bill.
  I would like to especially thank Congressmen Castle and DeGette for 
their tireless efforts on behalf of the millions of people who may 
benefit from enhanced stem cell research.
  I would also like to thank Speaker Hastert and Leader DeLay for the 
debate today and for giving the 200+ cosponsors of this legislation a 
vote on the House floor.
  I rise today as a mother, as a concerned grandparent, and as someone 
who is worried that the untapped potential of stem cell research may be 
falling by the wayside.
  In my congressional district on the gulf coast of Florida, I have had 
the pleasure of meeting Holly, a 47-year-old mother of two.
  Like many Americans, Holly and her husband had trouble getting 
pregnant, and their first daughter was born through in vitro 
fertilization.
  Her daughter was born with a congenital heart condition, and had 
three surgeries before her second birthday.
  As with most in vitro fertilization procedures, Holly and her husband 
had several embryos left over after the procedure. They chose to keep 
the remaining embryos frozen.
  This couple was then blessed by a second miracle daughter who was 
conceived without in vitro fertilization The happy couple decided not 
to have any more children, and had to make a choice about what to do 
with their frozen embryos.
  Holly and her husband are well aware of Operation Snowflake and the 
adoption options for their embryos.
  But, like many other parents, they would rather donate their embryos 
for research to help prevent heart disease--like their daughter was 
born with--or cure cancer, Alzheimer's disease or Parkinson's.
  For Holly and her husband, they decided that donating their embryos 
for medical research would be their best chance to save other 
children's lives. Increasing stem cell research could find potential 
cures for many diseases that affect so many American families.
  Put another way, the issue of embryos and their ability to be used 
for stem cell research is kind of like a flashlight. Until you put the 
batteries in, a flashlight will not produce light.
  Likewise, only when an embryo is implanted in a uterus to grow, can 
life be sustained. Embryos sitting frozen in a clinic help no one. The 
embryo does not grow in the frozen state, so human life is not being 
created and nurtured.
  In addition, when the couple stops paying the daily fees to store the 
embryos, unless they have the medical donation option, their remaining 
embryos will be disposed of as medical waste. That would be tragic.
  Holly and her husband know this fact. They know that without the 
nurturing and love that a woman's body provides, these embryos will be 
wasted.
  Science tells us that after as short a time as eight years, these 
frozen embryos will begin to deteriorate, and lose their viability for 
implantation.
  Mr. Speaker, these embryos are too important to linger in a frozen 
test tube or to see discarded without helping mankind.
  Additionally, I have yet to hear in this entire debate what opponents 
of H.R. 810 would do with those embryos that are not adopted, and 
eventually go to waste in a cryogenic freezer.
  Would they want those embryos to be thrown out as medical waste, or 
instead help provide the basis for life-affirming scientific research?
  Holly and her husband know that the great potential and promise of 
stem cell research will not move forward without their donated embryos 
and their support.
  However, it is their respect for the culture of life that has brought 
them to this decision. They have weighed the choices available to them, 
and rather than donating the embryo for adoption, have chosen to let 
their embryos potentially save millions of lives.
  Thousands of people around the country have made similar decisions to 
support life-affirming and life-enhancing research.
  H.R. 810 will give hope where hope does not exist.
  Passage of this bill today will let the research on stem cells 
continue under ethical guidelines, and will provide millions of 
Americans suffering from terminal diseases the hope that they have been 
denied.
  All these organizations listed on this posterboard, such as the 
American Academy for Cancer Research and the American Medical 
Association, support H.R. 810. I urge my fellow Members of Congress to 
vote yes on the bill
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

[[Page 11018]]


  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this is an important day for us in Congress. 
I myself am deeply indebted to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for their great 
leadership and courage in bringing this legislation to the floor. I 
thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  This is important legislation because every family in America, every 
family in America is just one phone call away, one diagnosis, one 
accident away from needing the benefits of stem cell research. We want 
all of the research to proceed, the umbilical cord research that we 
talked about this morning, and adult stem cell research. That is all 
very important. But we must have the embryonic stem cell research if we 
are truly going to have science have the potential it has to cure 
diseases.
  I served for many years, probably 10, on the Labor-HHS subcommittee 
which funds the National Institutes of Health. So I have studied this 
issue over the years. What we are doing here today is recognizing the 
miraculous power to cure that exists at the National Institutes of 
Health and in other institutes of excellence in research throughout our 
country. We are recognizing the miraculous, almost Biblical power that 
science has to cure.
  And what we have said, what we are saying here today is nothing that 
should not be considered of value. What we are saying is when these 
embryos are in excess of the needs of in vitro fertilization, rather 
than be destroyed, they will be used for basic biomedical research.
  It is interesting to me because when I first came to the Congress, 
some of the same forces out there that are against this embryonic stem 
cell research were very much against in vitro fertilization. It is 
difficult to imagine that now, but they were against in vitro 
fertilization and considered it not to be on high moral ground.
  The research is going to occur with Federal funding or without. It 
should not occur without high ethical standards that the Federal 
funding can bring to it. In order for our country to be preeminent in 
science, we must have the most talented, the most excellent scientists. 
They will not be attracted to a situation which limits scientific 
inquiry. As we all know, in science as in business, talent attracts 
capital, the capital to build the labs and all that is needed to do the 
research, and those labs in turn attract the excellent scientists, and 
that makes us first in the world, preeminent in science. We cannot 
allow this important endeavor to go offshore.
  I am particularly proud of my State of California where the people of 
California in a bipartisan way, as we are doing today, voted a 
commitment of resources to invest in embryonic stem cell research. We 
in California will become the regenerative capital of America, indeed, 
probably of the world. But this should be happening all over the 
country, and it should not depend on the local initiative of the State. 
That is good, but it should be coming from the leadership of the 
Federal Government with the ethical standards that go with it. We have 
ethical standards in California. They should be uniform throughout our 
country.
  To some, this debate may seem like a struggle between faith and 
science. While I have the utmost respect, and the gentlemen know I do, 
for those who oppose this bill on moral grounds, I believe faith and 
science have at least one thing in common: both are searches for truth. 
America has room for both faith and science.
  Indeed, with the great potential for medical research, science has 
the power to answer the prayers of America's families. I believe 
strongly in the power of prayer; but part of that prayer is for a cure, 
and science can provide that.
  Many religious leaders endorse the Castle/DeGette bill because of 
their respect for life and because they believe science, within the 
bounds of ethics and religious beliefs, can save lives and improve its 
quality. Groups as diverse as the United Church of Christ, the Union 
for Reform Judaism, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, 
and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America all support 
this bill.
  The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America says the 
traditional Jewish perspective emphasizes the potential to save and 
heal human lives is an integral part of valuing human life.
  The Episcopal Church in its letter in support of this legislation 
says: ``As stewards of creation, we are called to help men and renew 
the world in many ways. The Episcopal Church celebrates medical 
research as this research expands our knowledge of God's creation and 
empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer from disease 
and disability.'' This is what they wrote, and much more, in support of 
this legislation.
  It is our duty to bring hope to the sick and the disabled, not to 
bind the hands of those who can bring them hope. I believe God guided 
our researchers to discover the stem cells power to heal. This bill 
will enable science to live up to its potential to again answer the 
prayers of America's families.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, thank all of our 
colleagues on both sides of this issue for their very dignified 
approach to how we are dealing with this legislation today, but also 
say that today is a historic day, that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) have given us 
the opportunity to move forward, again to answer the prayers of 
America's families, to meet their needs, to allow the science to use 
its Biblical power to cure; and for that I am deeply in their debt.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a heart surgeon, a graduate from LSU, and 
chief resident of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery at the University 
of Rochester in Rochester, New York.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to vigorously oppose H.R. 810. It is ethically 
wrong to destroy human life, and H.R. 810 would allow for Federal 
funding to destroy human embryos.
  As a heart surgeon, I have dealt with life and death. I have held 
damaged hearts in these hands, and I have seen how powerful human 
emotions, coupled with hope, can be; but human emotions coupled with 
false hope and misinformation are dangerous.
  Embryonic stem cells have not produced a single human treatment and 
have significant limitations. They are prone to transplant rejection, 
prone to tumor formation, and there is a significant risk for 
contamination with animal viruses.
  Proponents of embryonic stem cell research are certainly aware of 
these problems, and that is why they view H.R. 810 as a stepping stone 
to human cloning.
  Adult stem cells have been used to treat 58 human diseases, and they 
do so without taking away what we are trying to preserve in the first 
place: life. Yes, life.
  For example, heart disease, the number one cause of death in the 
United States, coronary artery disease, has been successfully treated 
with adult stem cell therapies; and there have been 10 clinical trials 
that have been completed in human patients using bone marrow-derived 
adult stem cells to treat heart attack patients, damaged hearts.
  And in one trial, patients who were bedridden, not able to walk, were 
found to be jogging on the beach or climbing eight flights of stairs 
after successful treatment.
  Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible to spend scarce Federal dollars on 
false promises when there are certainly alternatives with existing 
treatments that do not create an ethical dilemma. And for these 
reasons, I oppose H.R. 810 and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this as well.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, today the political center will hold with 
Nancy Reagan, and this Congress will stand

[[Page 11019]]

for Yankee ingenuity and stem cell research.
  Our Constitution stands at its heart for the principle of the dignity 
of every individual and this idea is certainly central to our 
government and people. But there is a key American principle at the 
heart of our people that predates the Constitution. Nearly all of us 
are the sons and daughters of people who took risks to come to build a 
new life in a new world. If there is one American character that 
totally distinguishes us from all other countries, it is that Americans 
are innovators, explorers, inventors and scientists. We take risks, we 
try new things; and for 200 years the future came first to Americans, 
the most dynamic and forward-thinking people in all of human history.
  We invented the telephone, the radio, the airplane, we eradicated 
polio. Americans now receive more Nobel Prizes in medicine than all 
other European countries combined. We stand for innovation and 
leadership, and this Congress should ensure that American patients 
never have to leave our shores to find a cure.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a distinguished doctor on the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, Leon Koss said that good things men do can 
be made complete only by the things they refuse to do.
  Now I have no doubts about the compassion and convictions of both 
sides on this issue, but I take issue with the direction of their 
convictions, because in the end a life without a name is still a life.
  Words cannot take away that this is a life. By calling them 
``discarded'' or ``unwanted'' embryos does not take away that they are 
still lives. While some may see this as scientific efforts of ingenuity 
and future Nobel Prize work, it does not take away the lethality of 
this research.
  Further, let me state that President Clinton's Bioethics Council 
stated: ``Embryos deserve respect as a form of human life.'' In 1999 
the council said: ``Funding of embryonic stem cell research should be 
done only if there are no alternatives.'' The research that we have 
reviewed today and has been reviewed by this Congress in the past when 
these amendments have been looked upon over the last decade, is that 
there is still no alternative in the sense that the research is showing 
that cord blood stem cell research and adult stem cell research is 
where the results are found.

                              {time}  1600

  I have as much compassion as anybody. I have worked with 
developmentally disabled kids all my professional life and would love 
to see cures for them, but I want to see the funding go in the 
direction where we can see success, where that direction has been 
achieved and we will continue to see that.
  But above all, let us remember that there are other things in medical 
research and medical ethics which come together here because you cannot 
divorce the two. If we say it is all right to use lethal methods in our 
research to remove the life of an embryo, what next? What next?
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, twelve million baby boomers will have 
Alzheimer's. Three million baby boomers will suffer from Parkinson's 
disease. Juvenile diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, spinal cord injuries 
will wreak havoc on the daily lives of millions of American families. 
These diseases are going to bankrupt the health care system of our 
country unless we take action. Today, we can take dramatic action, a 
step, to deal with this looming crisis.
  President Bush has threatened to use his first veto to prevent 
scientists from using Federal funds to search for these cures. This is 
wrong. Stem cell research is the light of life, the way out of the 
darkness, the life-giving, life-enhancing, life-extending path to hope.
  Hope is the most important four-letter word in the language. We must 
vote for hope, vote for life, vote for a brighter future for all of our 
loved ones. Vote for hope for a small girl forced to stick a needle 
three times a day into her young arm. Vote for hope for a beloved 
mother whose loss of balance leads to falls in the night. Vote for hope 
for a spouse who realizes that his memory of life and family are 
dissolving into a forgetful haze.
  Vote ``yes'' so that the next generation of children will have to 
turn to the history books to know that there ever was such a thing as 
juvenile diabetes or Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or any of these plagues 
that affect our Nation today and are going to turn into a crisis in the 
next generation.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I am one of seven 
children. I am the second oldest. My older brother John is 2 years and 
2 days older than I. We grew up together closer than any other members 
of the family.
  After I left this House on the first occasion, within 2 years, my 
brother developed Parkinson's. He has now suffered with it for 15 
years. I have learned a lot of things from my brother, but one of the 
things I learned most of all was there is a difference between right 
and wrong. There is a moral dimension in most of the serious issues 
that we must face.
  Would I like to support embryonic stem cell research without a 
question of ethics because it might assist my brother? Sure. Would I 
like to see embryonic stem cell research in the area of cancer where it 
might have helped one of my sisters who has had cancer? Yes. Would I 
like to see it in terms of research of cancer that plagues 4-year-old 
children like my nephew? Of course. But can we divorce all of that from 
the ethical norm that we must present here?
  We look back in history and, yes, America has oftentimes promoted 
science. But America has made mistakes in the past. The worst mistakes 
we have ever made in the history of this Nation have been when we have 
defined a part of the human family as less than fully human and then 
done things to them that we would not allow done to ourselves.
  We have done it with slavery. We have done it with the Tuskegee 
medical experiments. Other countries have done it as well. The 
commonality among all of those mistakes, the greatest mistakes in our 
Nation's history, has been the ease with which we defined members of 
the human family as less than fully human.
  We are talking about embryonic stem cell research that requires the 
destruction of the embryo, the destruction of part of the human family. 
We should remember that as we talk here today. We should resolve doubt 
in favor of life as we do in our criminal justice system, as we do in 
our civil law system.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as this debate has gone on, and it has been a good 
discussion here today, I think it is worthwhile to come back to where 
we are on this whole issue here.
  The embryonic stem cell research we are debating here today is 
controversial because of the means of obtaining these cells. Research 
involving most types of stem cells, those derived from adult tissues or 
the umbilical cord, is uncontroversial except, as we saw, the second 
issue here today is, how effective is it? Is embryonic more effective 
than cord? Are embryonic stem cells more effective in treating injuries 
and illnesses than the adult tissue stem cells?
  So we sort of have a two-pronged argument here yet: How do you obtain 
the stem cells and, secondly, the effectiveness of adult versus 
embryonic stem cells.
  But I think in this whole issue here, we sort of lose questions. 
Before we even get to those questions, I think we should look at it and 
say, what is the ethical consideration of the human nature, and that 
should be the first question we should ask, not what are the

[[Page 11020]]

means we obtain it by, what is left over when we obtain the embryonic 
stem cells, or what is its effectiveness.
  I think we have to look at the ethical considerations. Because 
cloning is one method to produce embryos for research, the ethical 
issues surrounding cloning are also relevant. In fact, I believe those 
ethical issues should really be the first question we should ask before 
we debate the means of obtaining, or even the effectiveness of the 
proposed treatment.
  I would hope that life would triumph hope and the question is really 
before we even get into effectiveness or means, but what is the human 
nature consideration? That should be the first question we should 
answer.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Massachusetts 
eloquently stated a minute ago, today this House has a historic 
opportunity to vote for hope, hope for millions of Americans suffering 
with devastating diseases. These patients, their doctors and 
scientists, have reason to hope, the potential that embryonic stem cell 
research has for developing new treatments for these devastating 
diseases.
  One of my dearest friends recently died of ALS, or Lou Gehrig's 
disease, which causes fatal destruction of nerve cells. The slow death 
sentence that ALS gives its victims is brutal. The disease took away my 
young friend Tom's ability to control his own muscles, paralyzing them 
and ultimately making it impossible for him to breathe. Stem cell 
research provides hope, not for Tom but for future ALS victims. 
Scientists believe they can use stem cell research to replace the 
devastated nerve cells that ALS leaves behind.
  With heart disease affecting so many of us in this Nation, the 
promise of embryonic stem cell research has advancements for the human 
heart which are incredible to think of. Instead of patients suffering 
because their heart cells are failing and no longer able to pump blood, 
new ways could be discovered to replace those cells.
  And with regard to cancer, stem cell research has enormous potential. 
For example, it could facilitate the testing of new medications and 
treatments, not in time for my daughter's life, but for her young 
children's generation. We cannot afford to wait.
  And it could be used to grow bone marrow that matches a patient and 
is not rejected by his or her body.
  In each of these cases, stem cell research holds out promise. It 
provides hope that longer, better-quality lives are possible. That is 
what this bill is about. It will expand the ability of the National 
Institutes of Health to fund this research and improve the chances for 
finding new treatments and cures.
  As we have discussed, each year thousands of embryos no bigger than 
the head of a pin are created in the process of in vitro fertilization. 
A small percentage of these embryos are implanted and, hopefully, 
become much-longed-for children. Some of the rest will be frozen, but 
most are discarded.
  They will not be used to create life, they will never become 
children, they will be lost without purpose. But under H.R. 810, with 
the informed consent of the donor, under strict ethical guidelines, 
these embryos can be used to give life to millions of Americans. Today, 
we can give this hope to millions who have little to hope for now.
  This is an historic opportunity. I urge my colleagues to do the right 
thing, to support lifesaving medical research. Support H.R. 810.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a letter from a young 
girl in my district:
  ``Dear House of Representatives:
  ``My name is Kelsea King. I am 14 years old and have been dealing 
with diabetes for nearly 3 years now. There are many challenges in 
having this disease, both physical and emotional. Though it may be hard 
to believe, the emotional pain greatly outweighs the physical pain.
  ``My sister, Kendall, was also diagnosed with diabetes 2 years ago. 
She is now 7. It is very hard going through life knowing that both our 
lives could be shortened by this disease. It is also very difficult 
knowing what this disease makes us prone to, such as heart disease, 
liver problems, blindness and in extreme cases loss of limb. But the 
most difficult part of all is worrying about passing out due to low 
blood sugars, or being hospitalized. It is too large of a 
responsibility and too large of a burden for any 7-year-old and even 
for a 14-year-old.
  ``As you can see, my need for a cure to this disease is very great. 
But I do not want a cure if it takes the lives of others. I do not 
support embryonic stem cell research. I believe it is very wrong to 
take innocent lives for any reason, even if it benefits me. There are 
other ways of a cure. We just need proper funding. If we work together, 
we can find a cure through adult stem cell research.
  ``My hope and prayer is for my sister and I to be cured before we are 
adults so we can both live long and healthy lives. No one deserves 
diabetes but everyone deserves a cure through adult stem cell 
research.''
  The campaign for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research has 
been a campaign of half-truths, and at times, outright deception.
  Advocates of federal funding for destructive embryonic stem cell 
research do three things consistently:
  (1) Obfuscate the fact that a living human embryo is killed in the 
process of extracting the cells.
  (2) Obfuscate the fact that there have been no cures, treatments, 
therapies, or even clinical trials using embryonic stem cells.
  (3) Obfuscate the fact that there is unlimited private funding 
allowed for embryonic stem cell research.
  As Chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal 
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, I sent a letter to the 
Director of the National Institutes of Health in October, 2002 
requesting a detailed report providing comprehensive information about 
the medical applications of adult and embryonic stem cells. It took 
almost two years to get a response from the NIH, and the response 
omitted many of the advances, applications and trials for adult stem 
cell research that had already been reported in peer reviewed journals. 
The one thing that was complete in the NIH response to our oversight 
request, was the listing of applications for embryonic stem cells: 
zero.
  The applications for embryonic stem cell research was zero then, in 
June of 2004, and it's zero now. The human applications for adult stem 
cells currently number 58, and range from lymphoma to chrones disease 
to heart damage to immunodeficiency syndrome.
  Finally, let me be clear: there is no ``ban'' on embryonic stem cell 
research. There is no limit to the amount of private money that may be 
devoted to this research. The research is being conducted throughout 
the country. The critical fact is that we are responsible for the 
public purse, and forcing the public to fund unproven research where 
living human embryos are destroyed is completely unconscionable. If 
private industry sees promise in embryonic stem cell research, you can 
be certain that investors will find it. But the public should not be 
forced to subsidize a speculative venture involving destruction of 
human life.
  Fourteen-year-old Kelsea King, an articulate young constituent of 
mine, has Juvenile Diabetes. Her struggle with this disease is 
emotionally and physically challenging, but she is strongly opposed to 
the idea of developing a cure that would involve the destruction of 
human life. As she wrote in a letter to me, ``I believe it is very 
wrong to take innocent lives for any reason, even if it benefits me.'' 
I am submitting Miss King's letter in its entirety for the record.
  H.R. 810 requires the public to pay for destructive embryonic 
research that has no current applications. It's an empty promise to the 
millions who suffer with disease, and would surely pave the way for 
embryo cloning.
  I am voting against H.R. 810, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.

                                                    Avila, IN,

                                                     May 23, 2005.
       Dear House of Representatives, my name is Kelsea King. I am 
     fourteen years old and have been dealing with diabetes for 
     nearly three years now. There are many challenges in having 
     this disease, both physical

[[Page 11021]]

     and emotional. Though it may be hard to believe, the 
     emotional pain greatly outweighs the physical pain. My 
     sister, Kendall, was also diagnosed with diabetes two years 
     ago. She is now seven. It is very hard going through life 
     knowing that both our lives could be shortened by this 
     disease. It is also very difficult knowing what this disease 
     makes us prone to, such as heart disease, liver problems, 
     blindness, and in extreme cases, loss of limb. But the most 
     difficult part of all is worrying about passing out due to 
     low blood sugars, or being hospitalized for ketoacidosis 
     (which is caused by blood sugar being too high). It is too 
     large of a responsibility and too large of a burden for any 
     seven-year-old, and even for a fourteen-year-old.
       As you can see, my need for a cure to this disease is very 
     great. But I do not want a cure if it takes the lives of 
     others. I do not support Embryonic Stem Cell Research. I 
     believe it is very wrong to take innocent lives for any 
     reason, even if it benefits me. There are other ways of a 
     cure; we just need proper funding. There is no proof that 
     Embryonic Stem Cell Research is better or more successful 
     than Adult Stem Cell Research. If we work together, we can 
     find a cure through Adult Stem Cell Research.
       My hope and prayer is for my sister and I to be cured 
     before we are adults so we can both live long and healthy 
     lives. No one deserves diabetes, but everyone deserves a cure 
     through Adult Stem Cell Research. My sister and I need this, 
     as well as the millions of other children in America who are 
     afflicted with this disease. Please help us--support Adult 
     Stem Cell Research!
           Sincerely,
                                                      Kelsea King.

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) deserve our thanks for 
sponsoring the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and working with so 
many families who have been impacted by diseases that may find cures as 
a result of this vital research. Their work and dedication on this 
legislation has been tremendous and praiseworthy. I also thank them for 
giving me the opportunity to cast one of the most important votes I 
will ever make in Congress.
  Almost everyone has lost some family member prematurely. I think of 
the grandmother, whom I never met, who died when her daughter, my 
mother, was only 16. I think of my mother-in-law who never had the 
opportunity to know her grandchild who is now 25. I think of my cousin, 
who was brilliant and never got to realize his full potential.
  Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to cure disease and 
save lives in ways never dreamed of. And it is only 6 years old. These 
are discarded embryos that were never in the womb. They were not taken 
from it and they were not put into it. But they can help save lives. 
That is why it is so important that we not only pass this legislation 
today, but that the President signs this bill into law.
  Sometimes ideology can box you in and cause you to make wrong and 
harmful decisions. I think it is time we recognize the Dark Ages are 
over. Galileo and Copernicus have been proven right. The world is in 
fact round. The earth does revolve around the sun. I believe God gave 
us intellect to differentiate between imprisoning dogma and sound 
ethical science, which is what we must do here today.
  I want history to look back at this Congress and say that in the face 
of the age-old tension between religion and science, the Members here 
allowed critical scientific research to advance while respecting 
important ethical questions that surrounded it.

                              {time}  1615

  We know that by allowing embryonic stem cell research to go forward, 
treatments and prevention for diseases will not come to us overnight. 
But we also know embryonic stem cell research has the potential to 
yield significant scientific advances to heal and prevent so many 
diseases throughout the world.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I have a profound deep and abiding belief 
in the right to life. I have introduced a constitutional amendment to 
ban abortions every session of Congress since 1997 and have a perfect 
pro-life voting record.
  Two years ago I visited the Bader Peach Orchard in Campbell. I met 
the Baders' son, Cody, after my tour. Cody is a handsome and articulate 
young man who happens to live in a wheelchair because of a car 
accident. Cody asked that I rethink my opposition to embryonic stem 
cell research because he thought that one day if it did not help him, 
it might just help another young person like him. I later wrote a note 
to Cody's family telling them that even after hearing his story, I 
could not do as he asked. And I have regretted writing that letter ever 
since.
  My friends Joel and Dana Wood have a son James, who was diagnosed 
with muscular dystrophy when Dana was 9 months pregnant. James may 
never see his 21st birthday, and this is just heartbreaking. My late 
husband, Bill Emerson, and his mother, Marie, who passed away last 
night, both suffered from diseases for which stem cell research holds 
much hope: cancer and dementia. Embryonic stem cells are the only 
avenue for research we know of now that can possibly help alleviate 
those two diseases. Neither adult stem cells nor cord blood are 
plausible for the study or treatment of brain tissue.
  I have met with ethicists, scientists, two priests, and my own 
minister to talk about this agonizing decision. But when presented with 
an embryo, an embryo that cannot live outside a uterus, an embryo that 
is going to sadly be thrown out as medical waste, and the lives of 
little James Wood and young Cody, I ask do they not have as much of a 
right to life as that embryo that is going to be tossed away?
  I had dinner last Thursday night with my daughter and her friend, 
Will Coffman. Will's story is much like Cody's. We talked and talked 
about this issue. And Will said to me, We may never know how the story 
will end, but please do not let the story end right now.
  Mr. Speaker, my pro-life credentials are unquestioned. Who can say 
that prolonging a life is not pro-life? Technology and faith continue 
to present agonizing decisions and conflicts. Each life is precious, 
and so I must follow my heart on this and cast a vote in favor of H.R. 
810.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman physician 
from the State of Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have been a physician for 41 
years; and like my good colleagues who will not be supporting this 
bill, I would expect we could tell the Members stories of all the blood 
and gore and problems that we have waded through in those years and 
done our very best. I also consider myself a guy who is pretty much 
pro-life.
  This bill is not cloning. It is not somatic cell nuclear transfer. It 
is sound science. For those who have an ethical problem with the bill, 
I accept the fact that they have that problem and hope that at some 
point in the future we can sit down and discuss this issue. But for now 
they will have their position; I will have mine.
  Stem cell research, especially embryonic stem cell research, is going 
to go on apace very rapidly in all parts of the world, whether it is 
Singapore or Korea or Japan or China or the United Kingdom or Canada, 
other places on continental Europe. We are being left behind in this. 
We have the finest universities in the world, the finest researchers, 
the ability to bring stem cell research to a point where we will, 
indeed, have cures for everyday problems such as diabetes, such as 
Parkinson's, such as Alzheimer's, and perhaps even being able to create 
neuronal cells to take care of people who have spinal cord injuries. 
Science will march on.
  I believe this bill helps the living. Can there be any doubt that the 
potential of relieving widespread suffering with embryonic stem cells 
is morally

[[Page 11022]]

superior to simply destroying the excess embryos? How can we call 
ourselves a culture of life when we ignore the living, when we ignore 
the infinite potential of embryonic stem cells?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The order of closing will be in 
this order: the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) first, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) second, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) third, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) fourth, 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) will close.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, while Europe and Singapore and California 
and Korea are moving forward in an effort to relieve human suffering, 
the United States Congress, 435 theologians, have gathered here to 
decide a values decision. We have no guidance. There was no in vitro 
fertilization or stem cell research when Jesus walked on the Earth. We 
are left to make the decision on our own.
  The decision comes down to this: a man and woman come in to a 
physician. He presents some semen. She presents some eggs. They put 
them in a jar or they put them in a petri plate, and it becomes an 
embryo. They have several of them; so they use one. They put it in the 
mother. She has a baby. And there are a bunch left. Now what shall we 
do with those? Shall we throw them down the sink, wash them away, or 
shall we use them to help people who have terribly debilitating 
diseases? That is what this issue is about.
  Like the last speaker, I am a physician. I have counseled people who 
were dying with Lou Gehrig's disease. To watch somebody drown in their 
own secretions, someone that you know and care about, and then come in 
here and say we are not going to look for a way to relieve that kind of 
agony, we will not worry about a 13-year-old kid who gets diabetes and 
has to give himself thousands and thousands of shots and loses the 
length of life that most of us expect because of that disease; we will 
say to them, well, Jesus wanted us to do this. I do not remember the 
Lord ever saying that. I do not ever remember his saying, I gave you a 
brain, you human beings. I do not want you to figure anything out. I do 
not want you to make it any better.
  This is a perfectly good values judgment on which everybody should 
vote ``yes.''
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I come to speak for life, life for people 
with diabetes, life for people with Parkinson's, life for people with 
damaged hearts.
  What possible benefit is it for life to discard these cells without 
allowing them to be used to bring life, to save life, to preserve life? 
If these cells have any future, it is through curing disease. If 
Members wish to give them life, then let them give life to others. This 
is their only hope, and it is our best hope.
  Dr. Connie Davis, the medical director of University of Washington's 
Kidney and Kidney-Pancreas Transplant Program, put this discussion in 
perspective when I was talking to her yesterday. She reminded me that 
the donation of a kidney used to be a controversial issue in this 
country. It is no longer so.
  Our bill allows donors of these stem cells to make a donation 
decision, a donation to research. A narrow segment of our Nation did 
not stop lifesaving kidney donations, and a narrow segment should not 
stop embryonic stem cell research. Healing is a moral thing to do.
  I met a man at the Transplant Association the other day. He and his 
wife had, in fact, had an in vitro fertilization. He had other 
additional embryos that were available. He wanted to make those 
available to cure people with diabetes and Parkinson's disease, and he 
had one thing he asked me. He said to me, Let me and my wife make that 
moral judgment, not the 435 strangers who know nothing about my moral 
interior values or my life.
  That is an American right to donation. We should preserve it and pass 
this bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for yielding me this time.
  I recall being taught that the mustard seed is the smallest of all 
seeds, and yet it grows into the mightiest of trees. And the same can 
be said of the human embryo, something so very small, so unseen by the 
human eye, and yet so special at the very beginning of life that it 
needs to be safeguarded.
  The real heart of this argument is whether something so innocent 
should be killed and whether Americans should pay to facilitate the 
government-sanctioned experimentation on human life based upon a 
prospect, based upon a maybe, based upon a possibility, based upon the 
potential.
  The government already takes 285 million of our tax dollars each year 
and funnels it into pro-abortion organizations. The leadership of the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) undermines my ability to love my 
country, undermines our patriotism.
  I say stand fast against the secret pollsters and vote ``no'' on this 
legislation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate on stem cell research challenges all of us to 
think carefully about the value we place on human life. Many of us turn 
to our faith traditions for guidance and wisdom. None of us has the 
right to legislate our religious beliefs and impose them on others. But 
as Members look to the teachings of their faiths for guidance, I ask 
them to remember that not all faiths hold that stem cell research is 
the enemy of life. The religious traditions of many of us do not tell 
us that a 14-day-old blastocyst has the same moral significance as a 
human being and do tell us that the obligation to preserve life, which 
includes the obligation to cure disease and alleviate human suffering, 
is paramount.
  I understand and respect the faith of all of my colleagues. It is a 
sincere faith that reveres life. I ask them to accord that same respect 
to the faiths of others.
  Unfortunately, words have sometimes been used carelessly, and these 
words sometimes denigrate the faith of others. When the teachings of a 
faith are described as ``a culture of death'' because they hold that 
the potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of 
valuing human life, that faith and its adherence are being slandered. 
How dare anyone slander the faiths of many Americans as ``a culture of 
death.'' God does not speak to one faith alone.
  We hear lots of speeches about respecting people of faith and the 
need to bring faith into the public square. The people who make those 
speeches should respect all faiths. We should vote our consciences, but 
we should not denigrate the faith and consciences of the millions of 
Americans who seek to preserve life and end suffering and who believe 
that embryonic stem cell research can save lives and therefore embodies 
the highest morality.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, most of my colleagues that support this 
bill are from the pro-choice field. I come at it from the pro-life 
section. A lot of times I disagree with my colleagues because I think 
in some cases they would go further, and a fact that many people will 
not take under their wing is that many of these stem cells are going to 
be thrown away, either cryogenically they deteriorate and they throw 
them away, or a woman says ``I don't want to keep them for 1,000 
years'' and they discard them. They literally throw them in the toilet.
  Now we can save life. They say there is no good to be done. Animal 
studies have shown that work with the spinal cord, heart and others 
have been successful. We have not done it on humans. If you take a look 
at some of the

[[Page 11023]]

blood diseases with bone marrow used, that is stem cell.
  And we have hope in the future. I met a young man that had AIDS at 
NIH, and he only thought about dying. He said, ``Duke, all I need is 
hope to survive.'' This gives that hope, and I think it has promise.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the seminal question that we 
address is, should Americans be using their tax dollars to fund 
research that kills a living human embryo? My answer to that is an 
emphatic ``no.''
  It is our duty to ensure that we spend our money on things that work, 
and there are no therapies in humans that have ever successfully been 
carried out using embryonic stem cells. And that is really what this 
whole debate is about, paying for what works and paying for it in a way 
that is consistent with the morals of our taxpayers.
  Look, even the President and CEO of the Juvenile Diabetes Research 
Foundation, a group that is a strong supporter of destroying human 
embryos for research, he said, ``There have been more promising results 
in adult stem cells than there have been in embryonic stem cells.'' He 
predicted that their foundation would soon be spending more on adult 
cells research than embryonic research.
  Private organizations like these are choosing to use their research 
dollars on what works, adult stem cells research. Washington must also 
spend its money efficiently on what works, while representing the 
values of the taxpayer.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on Federal funding for killing living human 
embryos.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that just preceded me, 
speaking to the House, said that he did not think this experimentation 
would work. Well, there is no way it will ever work if we do not allow 
the research to take place. There can be nothing that is more pro-life 
than trying to pursue research that scientists tell us will lead to 
cures for MS and diabetes and Parkinson's and other terrible diseases 
that people now suffer and die from.
  Some people have said, Well, let us have an alternative; let us use 
the stem cells from the umbilical cord.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not a replacement for embryonic stem cell 
research that would occur if we passed H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act. We need to ensure that scientists have access to all 
types of stem cells, both adult and embryonic.
  Rather than opening the doors to research, the President's policy of 
stopping this work at NIH has set the United States back. It has meant 
that researchers who see the promise are leaving the National 
Institutes of Health. It means the edge that this country has had as a 
leader of research is now falling behind and we look to other countries 
who are going to take our place.
  For the sake of those who are suffering, for the sake of what science 
can bring to us, for the sake of life, I urge the adoption of this 
legislation. I do not think it is a good enough excuse to hold up a 
clump of cells and say, this we value and this we will protect, and 
then to look at our friends and our colleagues, people we know and 
people we do not even know, and tell them their lives we do not value.
  The United States is poised to assume a role of leading the world in 
this promising field. Vote for this legislation that will make it 
possible.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this issue is more than 
facts and figures. For me it is personal. It is about my children, 
Madison, Jeb and Ross Barrett. It is about my nieces and my nephews, 
Hayden and English and Jason and Andrew. They are not just names, they 
are living, breathing human beings. They are people I care about, they 
are people I love. It is my family. And they began life as an embryo.
  Let us be clear, embryonic stem cell research is completely legal. 
What we are talking about today is whether taxpayer dollars should be 
used to destroy potential life, and, for me, life must supersede all 
other considerations, especially for the purpose of medical 
experimentation.
  Life is so precious, Mr. Speaker, and as long as I am a United States 
Congressman, I will do everything I can to protect it.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which will expand 
funding for embryonic stem cell research, and I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of it.
  What I would like to say today is the following: Scientists have 
informed us, the professional scientists in our country, not political 
scientists, but scientists, and what they have told us from their 
considerable work and research is that this issue represents hope. It 
represents hope for the cure of diseases that plague so many of our 
people, from juvenile diabetes all the way to the other part of life, 
which is Alzheimer's, and so many diseases in between.
  This Congress and previous Congresses have seen fit to double the 
funding of the National Institutes of Health. I have always called them 
the National Institutes of Hope.
  We are now on the threshold, we are now on the threshold of debating 
an issue that can bring hope to our people. It is up to us to have an 
ethical standard in this debate. That is why no human cloning is a part 
of the bill that I support. Why? Because no one supports that.
  The American people are decent and they want an ethical standard, but 
they also want their Nation's leaders to continue to give hope to them, 
hope for the cure of these diseases that cause so much human suffering. 
We have a responsibility in terms of our compassion, in terms of the 
instruction that our Nation's scientists have given to us.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is an ethical bill, 
and it is a bill that is all about hope.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill which will expand funding 
for embryonic stem cell research, and I'm proud to be an original 
cosponsor of it.
  Under this bill embryonic stem cell lines will be eligible for 
Federal funding only if the embryos used to derive stem cells were 
originally created for fertility treatment purposes and are in excess 
of clinical need.
  Today, there are thousands of surplus embryos from fertility 
treatments that will never be used and will likely be discarded.
  We should allow parents who choose to donate these embryos for use in 
federally-funded stem cell research to do so.
  My home-state of California recently approved a $3 billion ballot 
initiative to fund embryonic stem-cell experiments. It is the largest 
State-supported scientific research program in the country. This 
initiative places California at the forefront of the field and exceeds 
all current stem-cell projects in the United States.
  But without additional Federal funding, our scientific leadership is 
being transferred overseas. Where the leading-edge research is carried 
out matters a great deal. Any policy restricting Federal funding for 
embryonic stem cell research threatens the long-term vitality of the 
U.S. economy, and most importantly denies millions of Americans hope.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 810.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), who is an OB/GYN physician, who practiced for 26 
years and has delivered over 5,200 babies.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in opposition, strong opposition, to 
H.R. 810, not as a physician, not as an obstetrician-gynecologist, but 
as a pro-life Catholic who firmly believes in the sanctity of life.
  I have sat here for almost 3 hours listening to every word of the 
debate as part of my job as a member of the rebuttal team, and here is 
my legal pad of notes and rebuts. Most of those rebuts are against 
people on my side of the aisle, because this issue is clearly a 
bipartisan issue. You have Members, Republicans and Democrats, who are

[[Page 11024]]

for the bill, indeed the authors, and you have Republicans and 
Democrats who are in opposition to the bill. So I have got plenty of 
rebuttals that I could make, but very briefly, I will just mention one 
or two.
  One of the gentlemen on my side of the aisle said that we need the 
Federal Government, we need the Federal Government involved in 
embryonic stem cell research and the funding of that to provide ethical 
guidelines to the States. You remember that comment, maybe an hour or 
so ago? Well, if the Federal Government is involved in a program where 
taxpayer dollars are spent to destroy human life, what ethical advice 
can they give to my State of Georgia, I ask? I think none.
  You see, I firmly believe in the sanctity of life, and I believe that 
life does begin at conception, and these embryos are definitely living 
human beings. The gentleman just said a few minutes ago that ``I can't 
imagine that a 14-week blastocyst has the same value as a human 
being.'' Indeed, it does.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to look at these charts and 
what we know with these so-called frozen throwaway embryos that nobody 
wants. Well, there are hundreds today of these snowflake children, and 
there will be many more when people realize this is available to them.
  Yes, it starts as an embryo, just a few cells, and then a blastocyst. 
But then here is a 20-week ultrasound with a beating heart and brain 
and limbs and moving, and then here is the final result.
  Let me just say in conclusion, the gentleman from New Jersey talked 
about his development, his growth and development, and going backwards 
in his life. He stood in this well and said, ``I am an adult man today. 
But yesterday I was a teenager, and before that I was a toddler.'' But 
he did not go the opposite direction and say ``In 20 years I will be a 
senior citizen, and after that I may be in a nursing home and I may 
have Alzheimer's. I may be a vegetable.''
  You would not want to destroy those lives, any more than the embryos 
at the beginning of life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, if people want to donate their 
embryos to another couple for adoption, our bill allows that. But our 
bill also allows people who do not want to give their embryos for 
adoption to donate them for science, so the children who are alive 
today can be cured. I assume no one on the other side of this issue 
would want to force everybody to give up their embryos for adoption, 
because clearly that would be limiting the choice that people have.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent New Jersey, one of the few 
States that devotes its own resources to embryonic stem cell research.
  To help us understand this humane line of research, let us look at in 
vitro fertilization. Several decades ago, many people raised concerns 
about this procedure; everywhere there were attacks using the term 
``test tube babies.'' But today there are 400,000 young people who are 
the products of in vitro fertilization, and in every case, there are 
eggs, fertilized eggs, that were not brought to full-term birth.
  But people do not condemn the use of IVF. And just as we do not place 
ethical burdens on the children who were conceived through IVF, we 
should not place ethical burdens on the millions of Americans suffering 
from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, et cetera.

                              {time}  1645

  I am hoping that several decades from today, we will look back and 
find ourselves thankful that we came to a humane, prudent conclusion. 
Embryonic stem cell research will have yielded new ways to diagnose, 
treat, and cure tragic diseases.
  I urge my colleagues to support the humane H.R. 810.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
for yielding me this time.
  We are here debating H.R. 810, which directs the Federal Government 
to spend tax dollars on embryonic stem cell research. This bill, 
therefore, implies that stem cell research is not already going on, but 
stem cell research is alive and well in America. Adult stem cells are 
currently being used to treat people, and successfully.
  This bill's approach, however, will remove stem cells from human 
embryos. This will kill the embryo. And whether we like to think about 
it or not, embryos are indeed human beings. Every human life begins as 
a human embryo; and by extracting their stem cells, this bill uses 
American tax dollars to destroy human life.
  The embryonic stem cell research in this bill destroys human life, 
and I believe that we as the American people should not destroy human 
life with American taxpayers' dollars, not even in the name of 
research.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I recently had a granddaughter born. I 
looked at that little baby, and I was in love with her when I went to 
ultrasound and we saw her, even before she was born. When I saw the 
little snowflake children, I thought about their humanness. I thought 
about what joy they brought to their families. I thought about little 
children that needed to be comforted when they were hurt, little 
children that wanted to be put to bed at night with a kiss and a story, 
their wonderful humanness, and I thought about what the American people 
think of babies and how we cherish them. When I see these little 
children, I know their intrinsic value; and how we treat people, in 
whatever form of development, depends on how we perceive them.
  The embryo is a human being at an early stage of development. When we 
talk to many who have great knowledge about this, and I appreciate the 
doctors in our presence, we should never spend the American taxpayers' 
dollars to take the life of an innocent human being.
  As I look at this bill, I know it is very complex; but we need to 
always support human life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810. I 
commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), for 
her leadership on this issue.
  Stem cell research is not about abortion. Stem cell research is not 
about human cloning. We are talking about finding cures for 
Alzheimer's, paralysis, Parkinson's, and other diseases. We are talking 
about improving the lives of countless numbers of people in this 
country. That is what stem cell research is about.
  We are talking about putting American health care and researchers in 
the best position to finding the cures for today's diseases tomorrow 
and to preventing the diseases of tomorrow today.
  This spring, I joined my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Israel), for a congressional roundtable on stem cells and on the 
biotech industry. Doctors, researchers, and scientists spoke about how 
the President's strict limits on stem cell research is prohibiting them 
from conducting the level of research that they would like to do.
  I agree, but who is missing out the most are the 650,000 people we 
represent and the potential this research holds.
  American medical research has extended lives through immunization, 
treatments, and innovations. From eradicating polio to advances in 
diabetes, American research has been on the forefront.
  But there is still so much more that can be done and much more 
potential that exists. I commend my colleagues again for this bill 
being on the floor, and I support it wholeheartedly.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

[[Page 11025]]


  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy of 
yielding me this time.
  I have been touched by the personal stories that we have heard here 
today. I think people are genuinely speaking from the heart.
  But the issue remains that we have embryonic stem cells that are 
either going to be thrown away for largely theological reasons, or they 
will be used for research to save lives. This research is going to take 
place in the United States and around the world. The question is, how 
rapidly? The question is whether the United States Government's 
official policy will remain frozen in place, or whether we will exert 
the same type of leadership that we have exerted in other areas of 
research, technology, and dealing with human health.
  For the sake of life, for the sake of health, for the sake of our 
families, I hope that this legislation passes, that we will be able to 
make sure that the Federal Government exerts its appropriate role in 
making sure that we have the resources, the direction, and the control 
to do this successfully.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of the legislation before us which I 
consider to be extremely important. It builds on the President's policy 
by merely allowing the use of embryonic stem cells created for 
fertility purposes to be donated with permission, but without payment, 
by the woman for research, research to cure some of the terrible 
diseases that plague our lives. These free citizens would simply 
exercise their right and their conscience in donating embryos that 
would otherwise be discarded, destroyed, as waste.
  I believe we have a moral responsibility to advance the research that 
saves lives, relieves pain, and prevents suffering, rather than 
destroying those embryos. Those embryos could produce the stem cells 
that would save lives, and should not be destroyed as waste.
  Why do we have to do this today? Because if we do not, stem cell 
research will be done, but will not be uniformly governed by NIH's 
ethics policy.
  Why do we have to do this today? Because no nation has created a 
sustained, strong, globally-competitive economy without the freedom to 
research the frontiers of knowledge.
  Finally, why do we have to do this today? Because it is the right 
thing.
  Now, we have heard a lot of discussion on the floor today about 
destroying these cells as taking life and, as a matter of conscience, 
this is a complicated issue and one on which we disagree. If you 
believe life begins when the sperm enters the egg, then, yes, you would 
believe this is a taking of life, though we would unceremoniously toss 
those same cells into a waste bucket. But if you believe that life 
begins when the fertilized egg is implanted in the mother's womb, 
which, of course, is essential for it to realize its potential for 
life, then using a fertilized egg that has not been implanted is not a 
taking of life. If, further, you believe that life begins later in the 
process, then you are not taking life.
  So I ask each of my colleagues to think carefully in conscience when 
life does begin; and, on that issue, your vote on this bill rests.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this stem cell 
research bill. The science will go on with or without the United 
States. Diabetes, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, these diseases 
will be cured either here in the United States or somewhere else in the 
world.
  This bill is not about human cloning, which I oppose. An embryo is 
special tissue. We should not create them with the intent to terminate 
them later. But here, the embryos were created with the intent to bring 
more children into the world. Many eggs were fertilized in this process 
and, once a baby is born, many fertilized eggs are left over, created 
with the intention to create a baby.
  As Oliver Wendell Holmes stated, even a dog can tell the difference 
between a stumble and a kick. Juries determine intent all the time and, 
here, intent is crucial. These cells were created with the intention of 
creating human life, and the only alternate fate for them now is 
disposal.
  Let us not waste potential human life; let us not waste these 
fertilized eggs by destroying them. Let us use them to save human lives 
through stem cell research. Support the Castle-DeGette bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, 58 to zero. Today we are asked to sear our 
conscience and harden our heart towards human life so we can experiment 
on fertilized human embryos because we are told it holds such great 
promise. The results from testing are far from promising, though. They 
are very disappointing.
  But there is an alternative. The adult stem cell research has been 
very successful compared to embryonic stem cell research, and this 
success was accomplished without the destruction of human life.
  In fact, more than 58 diseases have been treated using adult stem 
cells in contrast to no diseases having been treated by using living 
embryonic stem cell research. Fifty-eight to zero.
  Mr. Speaker, how do we know the score? Well, embryonic stem cell 
research is being conducted in America with private funding, but that 
funding is lacking. So the labs have come to us for more money. 
Apparently, venture capitalists invest only in projects that are 
profitable, and you can see it is far from profitable here: 58 to zero.
  So now we are asked to support embryo stem cell research because it 
is so promising, when the facts are it is not promising: 58 to zero.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan bill, 
and I will submit today's column in The Wall Street Journal written by 
Dr. David A. Shaywitz, an endocrinologist in stem cell research at 
Harvard, for the Record. I would call to the attention of my colleagues 
this column and particularly a couple of lines that he wrote today. I 
must say that I am one that will be voting for both bills today, the 
cord bill as well as the Castle/DeGette bill; but as you compare these 
two bills, let me note a couple of things that this noted researcher 
says.
  He says: ``Presently, only the few lines established prior to the 
date,'' this is in reference to the President's initial plan back in 
2001, ``are eligible for government support, a prohibition that has had 
a crippling effect on researchers in this emerging field.'' It further 
says, it relates to the cord bill, in essence: ``It seems extremely 
unlikely that adult blood cells or blood cells from the umbilical cord 
will be therapeutically useful as a source of anything else but 
blood.''
  Mr. Speaker, there are few families that I know that have not been 
impacted by a myriad of these diseases. We need help. We need to find a 
cure, and that is why we need to support both pieces of legislation 
this afternoon.

                          The Stem Cell Debate

                         (By David A. Shaywitz)

       Perhaps themost underrated achievement of the modern 
     conservative movement has been a renewed appreciation for the 
     danger of ``junk science''--unsubstantiated scientific 
     research that is exploited for political gain. How sad, then, 
     that in the ongoing debate over stem cell research, many 
     conservatives have chosen to abandon their well-founded 
     skepticism and to embrace dubious but convenient data for the 
     sake of advancing their cause.
       The latest tempest has emerged from remarkably modest 
     congressional legislation, proposed by Republican Michael 
     Castle and Democrat Diana DeGette and scheduled for a vote 
     today, which would permit federal funds to be used on human 
     embryonic stem cell lines derived after Aug. 9, 2001. 
     Presently, only the few lines established prior to this date 
     are eligible for government support, a prohibition that has 
     had a crippling effect on research in this emerging field.
       Human embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop 
     into any adult cell type. If

[[Page 11026]]

     this process of specialization could be achieved in the lab, 
     scientists might be able to create replacement pancreas cells 
     for diabetics, or neurons for patient with Parkinson's 
     Disease; these treatments are likely many years away.
       For some opponents of embryonic stem cell science, the 
     argument is fundamentally one of faith: The human embryo 
     should be held as sacrosanct, and not used for the pursuit of 
     any ends, regardless of how nobly intended. The trouble for 
     such dogmatic critics of embryonic stem cell research is that 
     most Americans hold a less extreme position; given a choice 
     between discarding frozen, excess embryos from in vitro 
     fertilization clinics or allowing the cells to be used for 
     medical research--specifically, the generation of new 
     embryonic stem cell lines--most of us would choose the 
     second. Consequently, conservative stem cell opponents have 
     now begun to argue in earnest that embryonic stem cell 
     research is not just morally wrong, but also unnecessary, an 
     argument that relies on suspect science and appears motivated 
     by even more questionable principles.
       First, the science: Opponents of the Castle-DeGette 
     legislation assert that embryonic stem cells are unnecessary 
     because adult stem cells, as well as umbilical cord blood 
     stem cells, will perform at least as well as embryonic stem 
     cells, and have already demonstrated their therapeutic value. 
     This argument appears very popular, and has been articulated 
     by almost every member of Congress who has spoken out against 
     the new stem cell bill.
       To be sure, one of the great successes of modern medicine 
     has been the use of adult blood stem cells to treat patients 
     with leukemia. The trouble is generalizing from this: There 
     are very strong data suggesting that while blood stem cells 
     are good at making new blood cells, they are not able to turn 
     into other types of cells, such as pancreas or brain. The 
     limited data purported to demonstrate the contrary are 
     preliminary, inconclusive, unsubstantiated, or all three. 
     Thus, it seems extremely unlikely that adult bloodcells--or 
     blood cells from the umbilical cord--will be therapeutically 
     useful as a source of anything else by blood.
       Moreover, while stem cells seem to exist for some cell 
     types in the body--the blood and the intestines, for 
     example--many adult tissues such as the pancreas, may not 
     have stem cells at all. Thus, relying on adult stem cells to 
     generate replacement insulin-producing cells for patients 
     with diabetes is probably an exercise in futility.
       For true believers, of course, these scientific facts 
     should be beside the point; if human embryonic stem cell 
     research is morally, fundamentally, wrong, then it should be 
     wrong, period, regardless of the consequences to medical 
     research. If conservatives believe their own rhetoric, they 
     should vigorously critique embryonic stem cell research on 
     its own grounds, and not rely upon an appeal to utilitarian 
     principles.
       Instead, there has been a concerted effort to establish 
     adult stem cells as a palatable alternative to embryonic stem 
     cells. In the process, conservatives seem to have left their 
     usual concern for junk science at the laboratory door, citing 
     in their defense preliminary studies and questionable data 
     that they would surely--and appropriately--have ridiculed 
     were it not supporting their current point of view. In fact, 
     there is little credible evidence to suggest adult stem cells 
     have the same therapeutic potential as embryonic stem cells. 
     Conservatives often speak of the need to abide by difficult 
     principle; acknowledging the limitations of adult stem cell 
     research would seem like a good place to start.
       Human embryonic stem cell research represents one of the 
     most important scientific frontiers, and also one of the most 
     controversial: Our national debate on it deserves to be 
     informed by our loftiest ethical aspirations--but also 
     grounded in our most rigorous scientific standards.

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time on all sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has 3\1/2\ minutes; the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
has 7 minutes; the majority leader has 8 minutes; the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has 6 minutes; and the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) has 3\1/4\ minutes.
  The order of closing will be the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) 
first; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) second; the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) third; the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette) fourth; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) last.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill and support the 
President's position on embryonic stem cells.
  Let's be clear. Embryonic stem cell research is legal in America 
today, and nothing in the administration's current policy has affected 
the legality of this research. The administration's policy simply 
provides that Federal taxpayer dollars not be used to destroy human 
embryos. I believe most Americans, when they understand this, agree 
with the administration. But this rule does not in any way limit the 
private sector from pursuing embryonic stem cell research.

                              {time}  1700

  But ultimately, Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that this debate 
involves profound ethical and moral questions. This is a matter of 
conscience for millions of Americans who are deeply troubled by the 
idea of their own funds being used to destroy another human life. For 
many of my colleagues, and for me, this is a vote of conscience.
  Let the private sector go forward, if it must, with the destruction 
of embryos for ethically questionable science. But spend the people's 
money on proven blood cord, bone marrow and adult stem cell research.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, in Missouri's 5th District there are two 
individuals, Jim and Virginia Stowers, who did not seek a Federal 
grant, but who used $2 billion of their own money to begin some very 
vital research. They founded the Stowers Institute. And the Stowers 
Institute employs brilliant researchers from more than 20 countries 
around the world, and they are working with the most advanced tools to 
answer the questions and build the bridges between diseases and cures.
  Our Nation is blessed with the greatest minds and researchers on this 
planet. But to whom much is given, much is required. And so, Mr. 
Speaker, this Nation has a wonderful opportunity right now to respond 
to the needs and the interests of its people.
  Two boys, twin boys were in bed. One fell out of the bed in the 
middle of the morning, and when the parents went in to see him and 
asked what happened, he said, as he looked up to the bed, I think I was 
sleeping too close to where I got in. And that is where we are, Mr. 
Speaker. Even after the President has spoken, we are, as a Nation, 
still sleeping too close to where we got in with regard to research on 
stem cells.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) how 
many speakers they each have left? I have four, actually five, counting 
me.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am 
intending to reserve the rest of my time for closing.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker and then I plan on 
closing.
  Mr. DeLAY. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 810, 
but in strong support of adult stem cell research as it respects life.
  An embryo is a human at its earliest stage of life and deserves the 
same respect that we give infants, adolescents and adults.
  During this debate, some would attempt to justify embryonic stem cell 
research on the basis that we are dealing with something other than 
real human beings. We use the words stem cell, but we could also use 
the words Nathan and Noah. These are justifications based on 
definitions of life that are purely arbitrary.
  Indeed, a human at the embryonic stage may look a little different 
than a human at the adult stage, but that does not make the embryo any 
less a human. The embryo possesses the genetic identity as it will as 
an adult. It is merely at an earlier stage in life.
  Just as we find it unconscionable and unethical to exploit human life 
in the name of science during the latter stages of life, neither should 
we accept the exploitation of human life at its earliest stages.
  Instead, we should focus our resources on supporting medical research 
such as cord blood and adult stem cell research that respect human 
lives and have an actual track record of creating cures.

[[Page 11027]]

  Vote against H.R. 810.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this proposal, we cannot ignore 
the fact that every human life begins as a human embryo. Sadly, passage 
of this bill will put the government and taxpayers in the position of 
sanctioning and funding the destruction of that human life.
  Now, we all feel strongly about the need for aggressive and advanced 
research to cure and combat the myriad of diseases that prematurely 
take the lives of our friends and our family members and our fellow 
citizens. When we lost my father to cancer, our family certainly wished 
that medical breakthroughs had come sooner.
  That is why I am so supportive of the rapid progress being made in 
the fields of adult and umbilical cord stem cell research. Cord blood 
stem cells have already been used to treat patients, we have been 
hearing, for up to 67 diseases, and it is my understanding they have 
the potential to become any kind of cell, similar to what embryonic 
stem cells do.
  While I recognize that many proponents of this bill offer their 
support with good intentions, in this case we do have clear 
alternatives, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to support adult 
and umbilical and reject this bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was recently asked by a kind and 
gentle lady my position on stem cell research. This is always a 
difficult question. But I told her, I am in favor of stem cell 
research, research that uses stem cells from cord blood and adult stem 
cell sources, research that is already showing great medical promise 
and avoids the ethically divisive issue of the destruction of an unborn 
human embryo, an unborn human person.
  Frankly, I did not know how she would respond. And she went on to 
tell me that she had MS herself. And she told me that if research found 
a cure using unborn human embryos, that she would not take that cure, 
that she could not in her conscience take that cure that sacrificed a 
human life.
  Mr. Speaker, let us set a new standard, one that aggressively 
promotes good research to help the sick and injured, one that respects 
the consciences of tens of millions of Americans who do not wish to see 
their tax dollars used in the destruction of unborn human life, one 
that supports a consistent life ethic and gives true hope to those who 
are suffering in our communities.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in strong support of H.R. 
810.
  Over the past two decades, three-quarters of the scientists who have 
won the Nobel Prize in medicine have studied or taught in the United 
States. And this is not a coincidence. Our Nation has created an 
environment that values innovation and discovery, especially in 
biological sciences. H.R. 810 will help America continue to lead in 
this crucial field.
  Of course, there is more at stake in this debate than America's 
global standing. Stem cell research holds extraordinary potential to 
save lives and alleviate human suffering. I had a father who suffered 
from Parkinson's, a mother who passed away with Alzheimer's. And I am 
all the more convinced that we must pursue this research vigorously, 
because I believe it does have potential to yield results.
  I would argue that H.R. 810 is worthy of our support not just for 
what it allows but for what it restricts. The bill requires that 
embryos be in excess of clinical need. It does not permit financial 
compensation for those embryos, and it requires the donor's written, 
informed consent.
  This legislation appeals to hope, but it insists on caution as well. 
H.R. 810 is as thoughtful as it is ambitious. For that reason I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I only have one more speaker before I close. 
So I yield, Mr. Speaker, 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who has been fighting for the culture of life 
his entire career. I am very honored to yield to him.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the reason this vote is so important is simply 
because the embryo is human life. It is not animal, it is not 
vegetable, it is not mineral, but a tiny, microscopic beginning of a 
human life.
  Everyone in this room was an embryo at one time. I, myself, am a 192-
month-old embryo. The question we face is how much respect is due to 
this tiny little microscopic human life. If we are truly pro-life, we 
should protect it rather than treat it as a thing to be experimented 
with.
  Lincoln asked a very haunting question at a small military cemetery 
in Pennsylvania. He asked whether a Nation conceived in liberty and 
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal can long 
endure? And that question has to be answered by every generation.
  What is wrong with this legislation? The motives of its sponsors are 
so noble. Well, I will tell you two things that are fatally wrong with 
this legislation. The first one is, for the first time in our national 
history, taxpayers' dollars are going to be spent for the killing of 
innocent human life. That is number one. And number two, this bill 
tramples on the moral convictions of an awful lot of people who do not 
want their tax dollars going to be spent for killing innocent human 
life.
  Americans paid a terrible price for not recognizing the humanity of 
Dred Scott. We are going to pay a terrible price for not recognizing 
the humanity of these little embryos. We should not go down that road.
  In World War II, 1940, before America got in the war, there was a 
publication called the Yearbook of Obstetrics and Gynecology. And Dr. 
Joseph DeLee wrote in that yearbook something that applies to us today. 
Here is what he wrote. ``At the present time, when rivers of blood and 
tears of innocent men and women are flowing in most parts of the world, 
it seems almost silly to be contending over the right to life of an 
unknowable atom of human flesh in the uterus of a woman.
  ``No, it is not silly. On the contrary, it is of transcendent 
importance that there be in this chaotic world one high spot, however 
small, which is safe against the deluge of immorality and savagery that 
is sweeping over us.
  ``That we, in the medical profession, hold to the principle of the 
sacredness of human life and the rights of the individual, even though 
unborn, is proof that humanity is not yet lost.''
  I believe humanity is not yet lost, and this vote will tell us the 
answer to that question.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me, and I commend the gentleman for his leadership on 
this issue.
  We have heard a lot of discussion of the three known forms of stem 
cell therapies that are hypothesized to treat all these diseases. One 
of the nice things about adult stem cell treatments and why I think 
they have been embraced, and part of the reason they have been so 
successful is, if you use a cell from your own body, there are no 
tissue rejection concerns.
  If you use a cord blood or placental blood stem cell, there are 
tissue rejection concerns; but it is felt by the advocates of the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith's) bill, such as myself, that by 
obtaining the bank, we would be able to enter all of your genetic 
information and come up with a match. And one of the questions I have 
for my colleagues who have been an advocate for the Castle/DeGette bill 
is, how, if these embryonic cells were ever proven to be useful, and 
that has yet to be demonstrated in the literature, how would you 
override the tissue rejection concerns?
  Mr. Speaker, it takes us to a very important part of this debate that 
we really have not dwelled on very much. They say there are 400,000 
embryos in the freezers, but the truth is the vast majority of those 
embryos are wanted,

[[Page 11028]]

and their own studies suggest only 275 cell lines will be available if 
this bill becomes law.
  Mr. Speaker, the place we are going to have to go to make embryonic 
stem cell work, if it ever can be demonstrated to work, is creating 
human embryos for this purpose. And that really brings me to my point. 
If you are going to go down the road of creating human embryos, you 
really only have two options. You are going to need tens of thousands 
of women to donate their eggs, or you are going to have to clone. And 
that is why people like myself have been saying, wait to see what is 
next, because that is going to be the next debate.

                              {time}  1715

  If this becomes law, we are going to be asked to embrace Federal 
funding for creating human life for this research. No longer using the 
so-called excess embryos, but either exploiting women for their eggs or 
worse, we are going down the path of cloning. And I assure you, if you 
find those options objectionable, they will be cloaked with the same 
kind of arguments that have been used to support this bill. People will 
say it is for the purpose of helping the sick and suffering. And what I 
have been saying over and over again, if you actually read the medical 
journals, the promise and the potential appear to be in the ethically 
acceptable alternatives of adult stem research and cord blood research.
  Reject this bill. Vote ``no'' on Castle/DeGette.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I make a simple plea to save 
lives by supporting H.R. 810, the DeGette/Castle bill, and to help 
Americans who are suffering. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 810 
simply to save lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act of 2005.'' As a supporter of the bill, I would 
argue that it is necessary to expand the number of stem cell lines that 
can be used in federally funded research in order to accelerate 
scientific progress toward the cures and treatments for a wide variety 
of diseases and debilitating health conditions--including Parkinson's 
Disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease, ALS, cancer, and spinal cord 
injuries.
  According to the National Institutes of Health, NIH, of the 78 stem 
cell lines that were declared eligible for Federal funding in 2001, 
only about 22 lines are actually available for study by and 
distribution to researchers. Further, NIH concludes that these stem 
cell lines are contaminated with ``mouse feeder'' cells, making their 
therapeutic use for humans uncertain. These NIH-approved lines lack the 
genetic diversity that researchers need in order to create effective 
treatments for millions of Americans.
  H.R. 810 would expand the number of stem cell lines that would be 
made available under strict ethical guidelines. The stem cells would be 
derived from excess frozen fertilized embryos that would otherwise be 
discarded. It is estimated that there are currently about 400,000 
frozen IVF embryos, which would be destroyed if they are not donated 
for research. The embryos could be used only if the donors give their 
informed, written consent and receive no money or other inducement in 
exchange for their embryos.
  It is important for me to note that it is simply not true that adult 
stem cells offer the same, or better, potential for treating disease as 
embryonic stem cells. While embryonic stem cells have qualities that 
give them the potential to treat a wide variety of diseases and 
injuries, adult stem cells do not have those same qualities. Unlike 
embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells cannot be induced to develop 
into any type of cell. Furthermore, adult stem cells may not exist for 
certain tissues, and adult stem cells are difficult to identify, 
purify, and grow.
  Unless Federal funding for stem cell research is expanded, the United 
States stands in real danger of falling behind other countries in this 
promising area of research. Researchers have already moved to other 
countries, such as Great Britain, which have more supportive policies. 
The recent announcement that South Korean researchers have produced 
cloned human embryos that are genetic twins of patients with various 
diseases, and have derived stem cells from them, shows just how far 
that country is going. While it is important to recognize that this 
bill has nothing to do with cloning, it is also important to recognize 
that other countries are moving ahead in stem cell research.
  This bill provides a limited--but nonetheless highly significant--
change in current policy that would result in making many more lines of 
stem cells available for research. It would do so under strict ethical 
guidelines. The measure has widespread bipartisan support. Passage of 
this bill would provide hope for those millions of Americans suffering 
from diseases that may be treated or even cured as a result of stem 
cell research
  Before concluding, I would just mention that the National Academy of 
Sciences, NAS, recently issued a set of guidelines to ensure that human 
embryonic stem cell research is conducted in a safe and ethical manner. 
Because of the limitations of the current federal policy, only 22 stem 
cell lines are eligible for federal research and fall under the 
jurisdiction of National Institutes of Health guidelines. Specifically, 
H.R. 810 requires that:

  The stem cells must be derived from human embryos that were donated 
from in vitro fertilization clinics, and that were created for the 
purpose of fertility treatment, but were in excess of the clinical need 
of the people seeking such treatment;
  The embryos would not have been used for fertility treatment, and 
would otherwise be discarded;
  The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with 
informed written consent and without any financial payment or other 
inducement to make the donation.
  In addition, the bill requires that not later than 60 days after 
enactment, HHS, in consultation with the National Institutes of Health, 
issue final guidelines to carry out the requirements of this bill. 
Finally, the measure requires HHS to report annually to Congress on the 
activities carried out under this bill. The report must include a 
description of whether, and to what extent, these activities were 
carried out in accordance with the requirements of this bill.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 810.
  Listen to the following news reports which indicate this research as 
viable and of great need for so many.

       Since the federal government's science officials have 
     abdicated their traditional role in setting ethical rules for 
     medical experimentation, the National Academy of Sciences has 
     filled the void with useful guidelines for research with 
     human embryonic stem cells. Acting on behalf of scientists 
     around the country, the NAS last week issued stem cell 
     research guidelines that should become a blueprint for 
     ethical behavior in both the public and private sector. The 
     Atlanta Journal Constitution, May 3, 2005.
       Kudos to the National Academy of Sciences for ably filling 
     the breach caused by the absence of federal guidelines on 
     human embryonic stem cell research. While we prefer that 
     rules governing research on human tissues be federal and 
     enforceable, the National Academy of Sciences' new voluntary 
     guidelines are a necessary stand-in. The Baltimore Sun, May 
     3, 2005.
       With the federal government's role limited, research has 
     been proceeding without clear, consistent guidelines . . . 
     These and other recommendations are a good start toward 
     ensuring that stem cell research is conducted in an ethical 
     way . . . The federal government is still not doing all that 
     it should, but these recommendations ought at least to help 
     the private companies and states that are moving ahead with 
     research that offers so much hope for many Americans. The 
     Winston-Salem Journal, May 3, 2005.
       The National Academy of Sciences gave a much needed boost 
     to embryonic stem cell research last week when it issued 
     ethics guidelines that should help researchers find a clear 
     path through a minefield of controversial issues . . . they 
     will give practicing scientists the assurance that they can 
     proceed with their work while adhering to principles endorsed 
     by a panel of distinguished scientists, ethicist, and others. 
     The New York Times, May 2, 2005.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank both the Republican 
and Democratic leadership for allowing this to take place here today.
  Sometimes there are issues of such critical social importance that it 
is only right that the Congress of the United States do this in the 
open, and they did that and for that we should all be very 
appreciative.
  I just want to leave my colleagues with some closing thoughts, 
perhaps some of the things I started with. There are 110 million people 
just in the United States of America out of 290 million who have some 
sort of illness

[[Page 11029]]

that potentially could be helped by the use of embryonic stem cells. 
Most of those will never be helped by the use of adult stem cells. We 
know that anything other than just the use of adult stem cells in blood 
tissues has been experimental at best and probably will never work.
  I would encourage everyone to use their conscience as they vote 
today, to think about their constituents at home. We talk about life, 
and I do not necessarily want to get into that argument back and forth, 
but the bottom line is there are a lot of lives that are being 
foreshortened in the United States of America and across the world that 
perhaps could be lived out to their fullest if that opportunity was 
given to the individuals involved.
  Remember that this research is going on at the private sector level. 
It is also going on at the State level. It is even going on to a degree 
at the Federal level. There has been $60 million spent over 3 years on 
this research at the Federal level, and about $625 million has been 
spent on adult stem cells at the Federal level. So the research is 
going on at the time.
  Our ethic standards in this bill, and if you read it, it is only 3 
pages long, exceed any ethical standards that have ever existed before 
including what the President had before.
  The National Institutes of Health said: ``Human embryonic stem cells 
are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult 
stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent, 
that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo 
except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent, restricted 
to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are 
thought to be.''
  That is where the science is. You can argue all you want, but if you 
do any extensive reading on this, that is where the science is. These 
are the stem cells which can make a difference, the embryonic stem 
cells.
  There are discussions of dollars. There are no dollars used directly 
in the destruction of embryos at an in vitro fertilization clinic. 
There are dollars used in the research ultimately. But let us look at 
that. Let us consider what that is all about.
  At the end, when those who have created the embryo make the decision 
that they no longer need or want that particular embryo, the physician 
has to make a decision about what to do with it. There are some options 
there. Not a lot of options. One of them is to give that particular 
embryo up for adoption. Some people do not choose to do that. There 
have only been fewer than 100 so far. And I think that is wonderful. I 
think that option should be offered.
  Some people may make other decisions, but basically it will be one of 
two decisions if this legislation passes. One is to put it into 
hospital waste, warm it up to room temperature, thereby destroying it 
at that point and doing it that way, or to be giving it up for 
research. And my judgment is if that is a decision, why are we not 
helping the 110 million people out there who need help, as opposed to 
allowing this to go to hospital waste because it will happen anyhow.
  If you do not like that, you better go out and lobby against what 
they are doing in in vitro fertilization clinics, and I do not think 
that we want to do that.
  There are about 400,000 of these embryos. That is probably a low 
estimate today. That is an estimate of about 3 years ago. About 2 
percent are given up a year. That is 8,000. The numbers that are more 
limited than that are just wrong. A lot of people now, if this passes, 
are going to be offered the opportunity to give up the embryo for 
research instead of hospital waste, and they are going to make that 
decision, and we will get the kind of work that we need.
  I would just close by saying that 14 out of the 15 diseases that are 
most likely to kill people in the world are not ever going to be helped 
by adult stem cells. We need to do this. With your vote today you can 
provide hope to tens of millions of Americans and many more around the 
world. Support H.R. 810.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has 
2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion today about the 
quality of adult stem cells and they are not as versatile as embryonic 
stem cells. There are a number of things that show adult stem cells are 
highly versatile and just as effective if not more effective than the 
predicted embryonic stems.
  The list of these studies is as follows:

       Myth: Adult Stem Cells are Not as Versatile as Embryonic 
     stem cells.
       Fact: A number of studies show adult stem cells are highly 
     Versatile.
       1. Professor Alan Mackay-Sim of Griffith University in 
     Australia published a study showing that olfactory stem cells 
     could develop into heart cells, liver cells, kidney cells, 
     muscle cells, brain cells and nerve cells. (Murrell W et al., 
     ``Multipotent stem cells from adult olfactory mucosa'', 
     Developmental Dynamics published online 21 March 2005.)
       2. Dr. Douglas Losordo at Tufts University showed that a 
     type of bone marrow stem cell can turn into most tissue 
     types, and can regenerate damaged heart. ``This discovery 
     represents a major breakthrough in stem-cell therapy,'' said 
     Dr. Douglas Losordo. ``Based on our findings we believe these 
     newly discovered stem-cells may have the capacity to generate 
     into most tissue types in the human body. This is a very 
     unique property that until this time has only been found in 
     embryonic stem cells.'' (Yoon Y-s et al., ``Clonally expanded 
     novel multipotent stem cells from human bone marrow 
     regenerate myocardium after myocardial infarction'', Journal 
     of Clinical Investigation 115, 326-338, Febru9ary 2005.)
       3. In July 2004, research conducted in Germany, led by Dr. 
     Peter Wernet found a type of umbilical cord blood stem cell, 
     they call USSC's (unrestricted somatic stem cells), that they 
     showed can turn into several different cell types, including 
     brain, bone, cartilage, liver, heart, and blood cells. It 
     showed that the cells can turn into all three germ layers, 
     showing they are pluripotent. (Kogler G et al., ``A new human 
     somatic stem cell from placental cord blood with intrinsic 
     pluripotent differentiation potential'', J. Experimental 
     Medicine 200, 123-135, 19 July 2004.)
       4. In June 2004, researchers showed that human bone marrow 
     stem cells have pluripotent potential. (D'Ippolito G et al., 
     ``Marrow-isolated adult multilineage inducible (MIAMI) cells, 
     a unique population of postnatal young and old human cells 
     with extensive expansion and differentiation potential'', J. 
     Cell Science 117, 2971-2981, 15 July 2004 (published online 1 
     June 2004)
       5. This study shows that blood stem cells can form cells 
     from all 3 primary germ layers, including endothelial cells, 
     neuronal cells, and liver cells. (Zhao Y et al.; ``A human 
     peripheral blood monocyte-derived subset acts as pluripotent 
     stem cells''; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 
     USA 100, 2426-2431; 4 March 2003)
       6. Researchers found bone marrow stem cells in females that 
     received transplants from male donors. Researchers found the 
     Y chromosome in the brain, showing that bone marrow stem 
     cells generated neurons. (Mezey E et al.; ``Transplanted bone 
     marrow generates new neurons in human brains''; Proceedings 
     of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100, 1364-1369; 4 Feb 
     2003)
       7. Another group of researchers showed that bone marrow 
     stem cells can form all body tissues. (Jiang Y et al.; 
     ``Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult 
     marrow''; Nature 418, 41-49; 4 July 2002)
       8. In 2002, Catherine Verfaille has turned these bone 
     marrow stem cells into skin, brain, lungs, heart, retina, 
     muscle, intestines, kidney and spleen. University of 
     Minnesota researchers found a certain type of bone marrow 
     stem cell (called a multipotent adult progenitor cells 
     (MAPCs)) that could be turned into the three primary germ 
     layers (endoderm, ectoderm, ectoderm and mesoderm). (Nature 
     advance online publication, 23 June 2002 (doi: 10.1038/nature 
     00870)
       9. A single adult mouse bone marrow stem cell can form 
     functional marrow, blood cells, liver, lung, gastrointestinal 
     tract, skin, heart and skeletal muscle according to 
     researchers Dr. Neil Theise of NY Univ. School of Medicine 
     and Dr. Diane Krause of Yale Univ. School of Medicine (Krause 
     DS et al.; ``Multi-Organ, Multi-Lineage Engraftment by a 
     Single Bone Marrow-Derived Stem Cell''; Cell 105, 369-377; 4 
     May 2001)

  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of arguments. In fact, we just heard 
again that in fact we throw these cells away when we are done. We do 
not want them. There is nothing we can do with them so we should use 
them for medical research or else it will just be medical waste.
  I must ask again, is that what we have come to as a Nation that in 
viewing embryos, that if allowed to grow and divide could become human 
beings

[[Page 11030]]

but we will just treat them as human waste?
  The proponents of H.R. 810 are so adamant that we do research 
specifically using embryonic stem cells. And why embryonic stem cells? 
Because they are the best hope according to proponents of finding 
cures. They say medical science can unlock these keys to life. We can 
cure any illness, any disease, or any injury.
  The proponents argue we must create life, the embryo, and then 
destroy the embryo through research to unlock the mysteries of life; 
create and clone the building blocks of life so we can manipulate and 
experiment. I believe as a country and as a culture that is a line we 
should not cross.
  We heard today about other research with adult stem cells, cord, 
placenta, bone marrow, fetal tissue, and how about unraveling our DNA 
through the mapping of the genome, all in the pursuit of finding 
medical cures.
  But where do we draw a line on medical research and say we as a 
Nation, as a people, will not cross that line? This question has not 
been adequately addressed in this legislation.
  When do embryos become life? We have heard all kinds of figures 
today. After 40 hours? That is less than 2 days after fertilization 
when we are able to check embryos for division and fertilization. Or is 
it 5 days when the embryos may be called blastocysts? At this stage, 
they are approximately 250 cells. Or do we allow the blastocysts to 
survive in the laboratory culture for up to 14 days and still then not 
call them human life, but blastocysts so they are open to experiment 
and research?
  When does life become scientifically non-existent? That is the 
question as elected representatives we have not yet answered. H.R. 810 
does not answer that. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 810.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have before us today is not a debate as some 
have suggested between science and ideology, but between aspirations 
and actions. Both sides of this debate wish to ease human suffering.
  So what divides us is not our ends, but the means to which we would 
resort to pursue those ends. That is why the Castle bill must be 
defeated, because while we are motivated by our aspirations, we are 
defined by our actions; and the Federal Government simply cannot 
sanction the actions authorized and funded by this legislation.
  For all the arguments we have heard today, scientific, ethical, 
political, the debate for and against the Castle bill, for and against 
the authorization of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund medical research 
predicated on the destruction of human embryos is in essence a question 
of the level of respect and dignity our government chooses to grant 
human life in its earliest stage. That embryos are human beings is not 
a political dispute. An embryo is a person, a distinct, internally 
directed, self-integrating human organism. An embryo has not merely the 
potential to become a human being. It is one, and as such, just like a 
newborn or a toddler or a teenager, possesses instead the internally 
directed potential to grow into adulthood, to become in a sense what he 
or she already is.
  An embryo is whole, just unfinished, just like the rest of us. We 
were all at one time embryos ourselves, and so was Abraham, so was 
Mohammed, so was Jesus of Nazareth and Shakespeare and Beethoven and 
Lincoln. And so were the 79 children, those snowflake children, those 
snowflake children ages 6 and under who have been adopted. Do not throw 
them away. Adopt them.
  These children have been adopted through different programs, but 
particularly the Snowflake Embryo Adoption Program, who under the 
Castle bill and its predictable progeny might otherwise have been 
destroyed in a petri dish, these children that were embryos.
  An embryo is nothing less than a human being, a fact both morally 
intuited and scientifically unquestioned. What level of respect and 
dignity, then, should our government grant such little creatures, these 
tiny beings who our eyes suggest are not like us but who our hearts and 
minds know in fact are us?
  The Castle bill is very clear, and though I oppose it, its clarity 
well serves both sides in this debate. The Castle bill says essentially 
that the potential medical and scientific progress represented by an 
embryo's stem cells justifies, justifies taxpayer funding for the 
destruction of that embryo through the harvesting of the stem cells.
  Of course, it is not the hoped-for end of the Castle bill that we 
oppose, nor necessarily, among some on this side of the aisle, even its 
destructive means, but instead the entitlement of those destructive 
means to Federal tax dollars.
  After all, human embryos are being harvested for medical research 
every day in this country. We just do not think the government should 
be forcing the American people to pay for it, especially considering 
the discouraging track record of the kind of research the Castle bill 
has in mind.
  To date, Mr. Speaker, none, none, not one of the countless and 
extraordinarily well-endowed private embryo-cell-harvesting projects 
has yielded a single treatment for a single disease. Not one.
  Embryonic stem cell therapies which are by design definitely 
untherapeutic to the embryos have in fact proven to be similarly 
harmful to those patients the treatments were supposed to help.
  Harvested embryonic stem cells are typically rejected by the host 
patient and often form cancerous tumors as a byproduct of that 
rejection. That is to say, Mr. Speaker, it does not work.
  And, indeed, many embryonic stem cell experts concede that such 
research will not yield results for decades, if at all, if ever. In 
truth, then, it is not the ends that would supposedly justify the 
grizzly means of the Castle bill, but the mere aspiration to those 
ends.
  On the other hand, better developed stem cells from the umbilical 
cords of newborn babies and the bone marrow of fully grown adults have 
led to treatments of no fewer than 67 separate diseases.
  Based on this successful track record, the biomedical industry is 
pouring its own money into adult stem cell research. It is the smart 
investment.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Castle bill would throw taxpayer 
money at the same unsuccessful research that companies with the 
financial motivation for developing such research are avoiding. It just 
does not work.
  Indeed, one might say the stubborn advocacy of embryonic harvesting 
in the face of the overwhelming clinical evidence of its futility might 
be a genuine case of ideology trumping science.
  But what if it did work, Mr. Speaker? What if all the Utopian 
comments of the Castle bill's proponents were to come true? What then?

                              {time}  1730

  What if we could be sure that government-funded destruction of human 
embryos could do all the things we are asked to believe? Well, in that 
case, Mr. Speaker, we would still be right to oppose it because in the 
life of men and nations, some mistakes you cannot undo. Some mistakes 
do not just come back and haunt you, they define you.
  A decision by our government to sanction embryo harvesting here at 
the very dawn of the biotechnology age could come to own us, for the 
paltry research sum envisioned by the Castle bill is but the first 
generation, the first drop of the deluge. Its offspring will ultimately 
include cloning, genetically engineered children, a black market of 
human body parts, and a global economy organized around the 
exploitation and hyper-ovulation of impoverished women and girls for 
their eggs.
  If the mere aspiration of ends justify the means here, in our first 
ethical challenge of the biotechnology age, how could we hope for a 
higher standard the next time? Which returns me to the irreducible 
question of this debate: What level of respect and dignity ought this 
government grant defenseless unburdensome human life at its earliest, 
most vulnerable stage?
  Given the biological fact of a human embryo's membership in the human 
family, given the technological necessity of embryonic destruction as a 
precondition of embryonic stem cell research, given the medical reality 
of

[[Page 11031]]

embryonic stem cell research's consistent therapeutic failure, given 
the moral catastrophe of means-justifying-the-ends morality, and given 
the physical revulsion people instinctively feel when considering the 
destruction of defenseless human life by scientists in lab coats; given 
all these factors, the answer a proponent of taxpayer-funded embryonic 
stem cell harvesting and research must give is ``none.'' For if we 
afford the little embryos any shred of respect and dignity, we cannot 
in good faith use taxpayer dollars to destroy them.
  I wish there was another way, Mr. Speaker, but there is not. It is 
just wrong, not as a matter of ideology or even fate, but as a matter 
of respect and dignity.
  We are not asking anyone here to recognize the rights of human 
embryos, but the wrongs of human adults. This is not about the embryo's 
standing as a juridical person, but our standing as moral persons. 
Because the choice to protect a human embryo from federally funded 
destruction is not ultimately about the embryos, it is about us and our 
rejection of the treacherous notion that while all human lives are 
sacred, some are more sacred than others. I heard it said here today, 
Some are more sacred than others.
  Like our embryonic cousins, Mr. Speaker, our Nation is whole but 
unfinished. The issue is a test in which we are asked out of good and 
pure intentions just this once, just this tiny little bit, to let the 
ends justify the means, to let the noble aspirations justify ignoble 
actions.
  In this test, in this vote, then, we have an opportunity today to 
speak truth to the power of biotechnology, to rise up against the 
prevailing winds of human excess and hold fast to the dignity of human 
life upon which all other worldly truths are based: to ensure our 
appetite for knowledge is checked by our knowledge of our appetites; to 
stand up, as only America can, in the name of the least among us, whom 
we serve, and become the people we are.
  I ask my colleagues, seize the opportunity and vote ``no.''
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, first I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to my 
partner, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), our bipartisan whip 
team, the 201 cosponsors of this bill, and so many others who spoke 
today from the bottom of their hearts.
  More than 100 years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes recognized 
that we are living in an increasingly complex world and that ``the 
chief worth of civilization is just that it makes the means of living 
more complex.'' This world, he says, ``calls for great and combined 
intellectual efforts instead of simple, uncoordinated ones.''
  The truth of Justice Holmes' words in today's complex world is best 
seen in the state of scientific research. We are on the verge of 
breakthroughs that will cure diseases that affect tens of millions of 
Americans. Yet some want to turn away from this potential, to refuse to 
even acknowledge its existence, simply because they do not understand 
the complexity of this issue. This refusal is slowing the process of 
ethical science and, worse, delaying advancements that could cure 
diseases that affect patients and families around the world.
  Our constituents want more from us. They want their elected officials 
to thoughtfully examine tough issues like embryonic stem cell research, 
and create policies that address both practical and ethical challenges. 
They also expect us to consider these issues not as Democrats or as 
Republicans, not as pro-life or pro-choice, but as people with family 
members and friends whose lives could be made better or even saved by 
our decisions.
  Passing H.R. 810 will allow the Federal Government to enable 
scientists, not politicians, to determine whether embryonic stem cell 
research will lead to cures for diseases that now plague us, and it 
will do so while establishing the clear and strict ethical guidelines 
that are absent today.
  In 2001, the President issued his executive order establishing the 
current embryonic stem cell research policy in an attempt to balance 
bioethics and science. In the last 4 years, it has become clear that 
the policy has failed on both counts. Research has been stymied in this 
country, going into private hands and offshore. Research moves ahead, 
but not with the resources and coordination of the National Institutes 
of Health and without clear ethical standards.
  I recognize that new science creates new moral dilemmas. That is why 
our bill sets explicit controls on how stem cell lines can be created. 
It gives another option for embryos created for in vitro fertilization, 
embryos created in petri dishes, that would otherwise be destroyed so 
that they can be used to potentially save or extend lives. It gives the 
patients for whom the embryos are created the decision on how they will 
be used: as now, freezing for possible future use; discarding them as 
medical waste or donating them to other couples for implantation; and 
if this bill passes, another option, donating them for critical 
research that could save millions of lives of people who are already 
born.
  Here is why we need to pass this bill. These are two young brothers 
from Denver, Colorado. Wyatt and Noah Forman. Both of these boys have 
Type 1 diabetes, and both of them have been diagnosed since they were 
2. A couple of months ago, little Noah had convulsions in the middle of 
the night from low blood sugar. His parents thought they would lose 
him, and now they cannot sleep at night. Without a cure, Wyatt and Noah 
face possible complications ranging from a heart attack to kidney 
failure or even blindness as they grow up.
  How can we tell these boys, these two boys and millions of others, 
that we would rather throw the embryonic stem cells that could provide 
them a cure than to allow them to be donated for science? How can we 
tell our colleagues, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), our mothers with Alzheimer's, 
our brothers with Lou Gehrig's disease, the millions of Americans who 
are praying for a cure and for whom embryonic stem cell research may 
hold the key, Sorry, the Federal Government is opting out?
  Let us not let 1 more year, 1 more month, or 1 more day go by without 
acting. Let us reclaim the Federal Government's role as the leader in 
ethical basic research. Let us give those whom we are sworn to 
represent hope. Let us pass H.R. 810.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.
  Today there have been bills presented that discuss, among other 
things, the merits of embryonic stem cell study versus cord blood cell 
utilization. This discussion, while interesting, misses the point of 
promoting stem cell research in general: Scientific breakthroughs that 
may originate from stem cell examination have the power to better, and 
even save the lives of our fellow citizens afflicted with terrible 
diseases. Stem cell research holds out hope for those suffering with, 
for example, diabetes, Parkinson's, and coronary heart disease, the 
number one killer of adults in this country. We must encourage this 
research, and the legislation offered by my colleagues from New Jersey 
and Delaware is an important step forward in our attempts to find cures 
for these diseases.
  Moreover, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act promotes the 
establishment of ethical standards with regard to the procurement of 
embryos utilized in the research. The only embryos that can be utilized 
are ones that were originally created for fertility treatment purposes 
and are in excess of clinical need. Further, the individuals seeking 
fertility treatments for whom those embryos were created have 
determined that these embryos will not be implanted in a woman and will 
be otherwise discarded. Finally, these same individuals have provided 
written consent for embryo donation.
  The development of standards, both ethical and clinical, is an 
important aspect of stem cell research. This bill directs that the 
National Institutes of Health develop guidelines to insure that 
researchers adhere to the highest possible principles in scientific 
inquiry. Here

[[Page 11032]]

we have a unique opportunity to establish national standards that will 
become the benchmark for scientific study throughout the world. By 
encouraging scientific breakthroughs while at the same time observing 
the highest possible standards of ethical and clinical behavior, we can 
go a long way towards battling genetically-based diseases that have 
ended the lives of so many.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the majority leader, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for the tenor of the debate today and 
for granting extended time and making sure all points of view have been 
heard on this important issue.
  Although I am going to vote for Castle/DeGette, I do not necessarily 
speak as an advocate for its passage as much as I want to speak about 
why I have decided to vote for it.
  I respect Members on both sides of this issue. I made sure that 
members of the committee I chair, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
regardless of their position, had an opportunity to speak and put their 
comments on the record.
  I come at this as a 100 percent pro-life, lifetime, voting Member of 
Congress. As I said earlier, this will be my second vote this year 
where I have not adopted the pro-life position. So I am not quite 100 
percent any more, but I would think that 99.8 percent over 21 years 
qualifies me as a pro-life Congressman.
  I have also voted numerous times for our defense bill, where we have 
voted hundreds of billions of dollars to defend our Nation and put our 
young men and women at risk, some of them that might have to give up 
their lives. I have voted for many bills for our law enforcement 
officials, where again they may have to give up their lives to protect 
the common good.
  Now, you might say, yes, but in those instances they were adults and 
they had free will and they voluntarily made a choice that they might 
have to sacrifice their lives.
  Well, I accept and support that an embryo is a life. I agree with the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) that we were all embryos once. 
I understand that. And, obviously, at 7 days or 14 days, embryos do not 
have consciousness. They do not have free will. They do not have the 
neuro cells or brain cells to make a decision whether they want to 
voluntarily make a sacrifice. I understand that.
  But I would say this: If they did, out of the 400,000 that we think 
may be in existence, if you narrow that down to the 2.8 percent that 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) talked about that are probably not 
going to be used for reproductive purposes, if they did, would not some 
of them, knowing the stakes, volunteer? It only takes one, the right 
one, that magic silver bullet embryo that creates that magic stem cell 
that can be replicated into any of the 200 cell lines that make up the 
human body.
  If I had that opportunity, might I not take advantage of it? Somebody 
would. And since they cannot, because they do not have consciousness, 
under a traditional law in this United States of America we give 
custody to the parents. A parent will make a decision at some point in 
time, or a family member will make a decision at some point in time 
that perhaps they do not want to put up for adoption, which is the 
decision I would make.

                              {time}  1745

  Why not? In addition to the cord blood bill that we have just passed, 
why not make it possible for some of these under the conditions in the 
Castle/DeGette bill for some to be used for research purposes. It does 
not take many. I respect those who say, no, you cannot do it at all. 
But I also say given a choice, let us err on the side of opportunity. 
That is why I am going to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810. This 
bipartisan legislation will enhance existing stern cell research and 
help our nation's scientists make significant progress toward the 
development of treatments for conditions affecting more than 100 
million Americans.
  But this is not just about Americans. For years, our country has led 
the world in medical advancements, and people from around the globe 
travel here for medical education as well as for lifesaving care. 
Today, the House is considering opening new lines of research--research 
that will help the United States retain its place as a world leader in 
this burgeoning new field, while helping to alleviate the pain and 
suffering of many around the world.
  Current federal policy, put into place by President Bush on August 9, 
2001, allows federal funds to be used to support research from the 
stern cell lines that existed on that date, but it bans the creation of 
additional stern cells from embryos that are stored at in vitro 
fertilization clinics. To many observers, this policy seemed a 
reasonable compromise at the time, as many scientists believed that the 
existing 78 stern cell lines would be available for use. In fact, only 
22 lines are available and some of these were found to have been 
contaminated from contact with mouse ``feeder'' cells. In addition, the 
22 available lines were developed using science that has since seen 
significant improvements. Scientists at the National Institutes of 
Health report that these lines also lack the genetic diversity 
necessary to perform extensive research for diseases that 
disproportionately affect minorities. These deficiencies decrease the 
overall number of opportunities available for our scientists and 
undermine potential progress in the stern cell field. In essence, our 
policy has discouraged scientific exploration by restricting the extent 
of research. It is wrong for Congress to tie the hands of our 
scientists while millions of Americans suffer.
  Since the President's policy was implemented, I have heard from 
hundreds of Marylanders who have been diagnosed with debilitating 
illnesses, including leukemia, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, 
Alzheimer's disease, and spinal cord injuries. They are grateful for 
the federal research funding that Congress has provided in past years, 
particularly the doubling of the NIH budget over a five year period, 
and they look to the future with hope that more effective treatments 
and someday, cures, will be forthcoming.
  I have also heard from the academic medical centers across the 
country. These are the places where the most complex medical procedures 
are performed, where medical school graduates from around the world are 
trained, where our most groundbreaking research is conducted. Two of 
the finest academic medical centers are located in Baltimore--the 
University of Maryland Medical Center and the Johns Hopkins University 
Medical Center. This bill presents an opportunity to expand their 
ability to make life saving and life extending discoveries.
  Some of my colleagues have raised ethical concerns about stem cell 
research, and I believe that this bill effectively addresses these 
concerns. The authors of this bill, Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette, have 
written this legislation so as to not encourage the creation of human 
embryos for research or for any other purposes. This bill stipulates 
that all embryos used for research must have been originally created 
for in vitro fertilization and are in excess of clinical need; it 
requires that the embryos would not have been implanted and would have 
otherwise been discarded; and it requires donors to provide written 
consent before embryos may be donated for research. These guidelines 
are ethically sound; they help ensure that enhancing stem cell research 
policy will not come at the expense of respect for human life.
  It is not certain that stem cell research will result in cures, but 
it is fairly certain that if we close off promising avenues, such as 
stem cell research, finding those therapies and cures will take much 
longer.
  In 2001, two months before President Bush issued his stem cell 
policy, Sue Stamos and her daughter, Faith, came to visit me in my 
office. At the time, Faith was three years old--a very brave little 
girl who had been diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. Sue asked for my 
support for federal research to help find a cure for Faith, and I 
promised to do everything I could to help. Back in June of 2001, our 
knowledge of stem cell research's potential was nowhere near what it is 
now, and we did not yet know what the President would propose. Today, 
we have much broader and deeper knowledge about the scientific 
possibilities of stem cells, but much less capacity to research stem 
cell lines than we had anticipated. Today, I will vote to keep my 
promise to Sue and Faith Stamos and to the thousands of other 
Marylanders who are waiting for cures. I will vote to expand the stem 
cells lines available for federally funded research.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I must note that stem cell research is a 
controversial and emotional subject. It touches on questions of human 
suffering, medical ethics, scientific potential, the role of 
government, moral considerations, and life itself. H.R. 810 strikes the 
right balance. It encourages research, but it does

[[Page 11033]]

not encourage the creation of embryos for research purposes. It allows 
us to support the efforts of the brilliant scientists in our research 
institutions who have dedicated their careers to alleviating the 
suffering of others. It allows us to honor the wishes of in vitro 
fertilization donors who want to make a contribution toward medical 
advancement. It was right for the leadership to allow a vote on this 
important bill, and it is right for the House to pass it.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 810.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810, to 
provide for human embryonic stem cell research. The measure is a 
crucial first step toward helping millions of people who suffer today 
from diseases that are currently without treatment. By broadening the 
federal government's investment in this nascent technology, I am 
confident that we will be able to offer help to these men, women, and 
children that would be impossible by conventional means.
  The room for growth in embryonic stem cell research is exponential. 
According to the National Institutes of Health, this work may one day 
be used in gene therapy and to overcome immune rejection. Heart 
disease, Alzheimer's, Krabbe disease and stroke are just a few of the 
maladies that this research could help to treat and eventually cure.
  My region in Western New York has a number of great research 
institutes that boast a rich history of tackling devastating health 
afflictions. For example, Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI), located 
in Buffalo, implemented the nation's first chemotherapy program.
  RPCI's Center for Pharmacology and Therapeutics is one of few in the 
nation capable of all phases of drug development, from the conceptual 
stage through manufacturing and testing. This year, RPCI's strong basic 
and clinical research programs attracted major research grants and 
contracts totaling more than $75 million. The Institute has sponsored 
or collaborated on more than 350 clinical trials of promising new 
cancer treatments and its developing cancer genetics program will rival 
the world's leading programs in that field.
  The Institute has also made significant contributions to the landmark 
human genome project, and its new Center for Genetics and Pharmacology 
will adjoin the University at Buffalo's Center of Excellence in 
Bioinformatics and Life Sciences and the new 72,000 sq. ft, $24 million 
Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute building that opened less 
than two weeks ago. The three centers form a state-of-the-art life 
science cluster in downtown Buffalo that will transform lives in my 
district and across the world through the cutting edge stem cell and 
genomic research.
  Western New York has made a commitment to curing disease, caring for 
the sick and preventing the needless loss of life wherever possible. 
Our innovative institutes, led by some of the best researchers in the 
world, can make an immeasurable difference in people's lives. It would 
be unconscionable, now that we are so close to the ability to use stem 
cells to fight off the diseases and maladies that plague us, for us to 
turn our backs and withhold that care. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to 
pass H.R. 810. We have the tools to save lives; it is now our duty to 
use them.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering H.R. 810, the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which expands funding for 
embryonic stem cell research. As an advocate of stem cell research, I'm 
proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation because I believe 
that this critical research can lead to cures for Type 1 Diabetes, 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, paralysis caused by spinal 
cord injury, and other serious health problems.
  Over 3,000 people die every day in the United States from diseases 
that may some day be treatable as a result of stem cell research. Now 
is the time for Congress and the Administration to recognize that the 
current policy does not work.
  In 2001, President Bush crafted a policy to allow limited federal 
support for some embryonic stem cell research. Four years later, 
however, it's clear that his policy has hindered progress. Today, of 
the 78 stem cells lines approved for federal research, only 22 are 
available to researchers. These 22 lines are not only contaminated but 
were also developed with outdated techniques.
  Under H.R. 810, embryonic stem cell lines will be eligible only if 
embryos used to derive stem cells were originally created for fertility 
treatment purposes and are in excess of clinical need. Today, there are 
thousands of surplus embryos from fertility treatments that will never 
be used and will likely be discarded. We should allow parents to donate 
these embryos for use in federally-funded stem cell research.
  This November, my home-state of California approved a $3 billion 
ballot initiative supported by Governor Schwarzenegger to fund 
embryonic stem-cell experiments. It is the largest state-supported 
scientific research program. This initiative puts California at the 
forefront of the field and exceeds all current stem cell projects in 
the United States.
  However, with the Federal Government on the sidelines, scientists are 
still reluctant to pursue stem cell research and the private sector is 
unwilling to invest in the field. We are losing ground to the rest of 
the world. As the Washington Post reported last Friday (May 20, 2005), 
South Korea is leapfrogging ahead of us and is developing techniques 
proving that stem cell research is robust.
  Now, the public, researchers and industry are looking to Congress for 
leadership. Stem cell research should not be about politics. It should 
be about science, medicine and hope. We have an opportunity to help end 
the suffering of millions of people with chronic or terminal diseases, 
and we should seize it.
  Stem cell research is not only critical to saving lives but it also 
stimulates our Nation's economy. Stem cell research is the next ``big 
thing'' in biotechnology after the human genome project. Long-term 
economic growth depends on productivity, productivity depends on 
technology, and technology ultimately depends on basic science, which 
is why any policy restricting federal funding for embryonic stem-cell 
research threatens the long-term health and vitality of the U.S. 
economy. Biotechnology is at a stage of development similar to where 
information technology was in the late 1980s--ready to explode.
  For our leadership in science and technological leadership, where 
innovative leading-edge research is carried out matters a great deal, 
but under the current policy we're leaving the field even before the 
game has begun.
  Now the President has said he will veto this bill. He may succeed in 
stifling stem cell research in our country, but he will not stop 
scientific progress. It will occur elsewhere. If the U.S. fails to 
embrace stem cell research, we will only slow progress in treating 
disease and cede our leading role as a technological leader.
  The Federal Government should be in the business of encouraging and 
assisting research that can help save the lives of its citizens. The 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 accelerates scientific 
progress toward cures and treatments for a wide range of diseases while 
simultaneously instituting stronger ethical requirements on stem cell 
lines that are eligible for federally funded research.
  I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act, to put science and compassion ahead of 
ideology and fear.
  The promise of embryonic stem cells is that they alone have the 
potential to develop into any kind of body tissue, including blood, 
brain, muscle, organ, or nerve tissue. Scientists believe that this 
unique ability might lead to breakthroughs in a number of illnesses 
that are now untreatable. Over 100 million Americans suffer from 
diseases and conditions that may one day be treated using stem cell 
therapies, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, Lou 
Gehrig's disease, severe bums, and spinal cord injuries.
  For the very reason that we do not yet know what kind of treatments 
stem cell research will yield, it would be unwise not to explore the 
possibilities.
  As one researcher at Harvard Medical School and Boston's Children's 
Hospital recently wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, ``the 
science of human embryonic stem cells is in its infancy.'' Restricting 
stem cell research now ``threaten[s] to starve the field at a critical 
stage.'' It's critical to understand the science of stem cell research 
to weigh the moral and ethical issues involved. This bill allows 
funding of research on stem cells that are harnessed from fertility 
clinics.
  In vitro fertilization is a technology that has allowed millions of 
couples to share in the joy of childbirth. It results in the creation 
of embryos that are never implanted into the womb, never grow to be 
more than a handful of cells, and would otherwise be discarded. 
Harnessing stem cells for medical research from fertility clinics is a 
compassionate, pro-family, and pro-life position.
  As one of the world's foremost centers of medical research, 
Massachusetts has much at stake in the stem cell debate. Not only are 
our hospitals, research facilities, and institutions of higher learning 
on the cutting edge of conquering disease, they are also major economic 
drivers keeping us competitive in the global economy and employing tens 
of thousands of people.
  Massachusetts has over 250 biotech firms. That is more than all of 
Western Europe combined.

[[Page 11034]]

  If we continue the current ban on stem cell research, it does not 
mean that research will stop elsewhere. But it would put America--the 
world's most powerful engine of innovation and progress--on the 
sidelines.
  Mr. Speaker, America should be leading the world in using our 
compassion and our scientific knowledge to develop lifesaving 
therapies. I urge support for H.R. 810.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, as an original co-sponsor of H.R. 810, I rise 
in support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
  I want to applaud my colleagues Rep. Castle and Rep. DeGette for 
working together to introduce this common sense bi-partisan measure.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that our population is aging. Debilitating 
chronic diseases like cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes 
are becoming far more common.
  Diabetes in particular is a huge problem, and like many other 
diseases, minority communities are disproportionately affected by it.
  In my district in Alameda County, approximately 13.4 percent of 
African Americans have been diagnosed with diabetes compared to 4.5 
percent of Whites. And the diabetes death rates of Latinos and African 
Americans are as high as 2-2.5 times those of Whites.
  Expanding the number of embryonic stem cell lines available for 
research will assist scientists to develop therapeutic treatments and 
cures for diabetes and a range of other diseases.
  By passing this bill we will not only help to improve the health and 
well being of the public, but we will also help to eliminate future 
chronic health care costs and improve the health of our economy as a 
whole.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, it is important that I give voice to the 
important issue of stem cell research. This is not an issue that anyone 
takes lightly. Life is precious in all forms, and it is important to do 
all that we can to ensure issues surrounding life and quality of life 
are given the highest priority.
  Millions of Americans suffer from debilitating diseases like Juvenile 
Diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and a host of other diseases 
that reduce the quality of life or cause loss of life. Stem cells 
derived from embryos have shown tremendous promise in the fight to rid 
society of many of these diseases. In 2003 alone there were 1,681,339 
deaths from diseases that could benefit from this research.
  Many couples across America struggling to have children benefit from 
In Vitro Fertilization, a process where embryos are created to provide 
couples with the potential to have children. In many cases, couples 
have left over embryos that would be destroyed. This legislation simply 
provides the opportunity for those embryos to save lives already being 
lived.
  Lives being lived by people like Tambrie Alden from Glens Falls, NY. 
Tambrie has had Juvenile Diabetes for 28 years. She goes through 10 
daily finger sticks a day and has worn an insulin pump for 10 years. 
Each day brings a different battle for Tambrie; she must constantly 
monitor the highs and lows of her condition. Tambrie has had over 200 
laser eye surgeries due to Juvenile Diabetes, which also continues to 
attack her organs ability to function properly.
  On Sunday, Tambrie turns 47. She celebrates every birthday to the 
fullest, because when she was diagnosed with Juvenile Diabetes, the 
doctors told her she would not live past 43. Tambrie lives on borrowed 
time and worries about losing her sight and not being able to see her 
grandchildren grow up. She knows that embryonic stem cell research 
probably won't help her, but she prays the promise it holds will ensure 
that her grandchildren don't have to suffer as she has. That's why we 
are here today, to make sure that people like Tambrie can live their 
lives to the fullest.
  This action is limited to promoting responsible research with embryos 
that would be destroyed otherwise. Congressional oversight on this 
ethically sensitive issue is the right balance to ensure that our 
nation remains diligent in our approach to medical research, while 
taking important steps to improve the quality of life for those who 
suffer from debilitating diseases.
  The bill establishes strict standards for use of fertility clinic 
embryos. First, written permission is required of the couple donating 
the embryo. Second, there can be no financial compensation, much like 
organ donation. Finally, the legislation requires the National 
Institutes of Health to establish strict oversight for the scientific 
community to ensure ethical guidelines are adhered to.
  Embryonic stem cell research is a new form of research in the early 
stages. I am fundamentally opposed to cloning embryos or creating 
embryos for scientific research. This legislation does not a ow 
cloning, it merely ensures that embryos already created and unused 
serve a higher purpose than being destroyed.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and H.R. 2520, the 
Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act that we debated earlier today. 
Both bills would expand stem cell research, which holds tremendous 
promise to curing and treating some of the most devastating diseases 
and conditions facing Americans today. This issue is about medical 
research coupled with high ethical standards and providing hope to 
those most in need--it should have no role in any party's political 
agenda.
  In 2001, President Bush announced that for the first time federal 
funds could be used to support limited research on human embryonic stem 
cells, specifically ``existing stem cell lines where the life and death 
decision has already been made.'' Under this policy, only 78 embryonic 
stem cell lines are eligible for use and according to the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH), only 22 of those lines are viable for human 
research. Since 2001, 128 embryonic stem cell lines have been developed 
that are ineligible for federally funded research.
  Both bills--the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act that would 
create a new federal program to collect and store umbilical-cord-blood 
cells and expand the current bone-marrow registry program and the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act that would increase the number of stem 
cell lines that can be used in federally funded research--establish 
much-needed ethical standards and expand the possibilities of stem cell 
research for new treatments and cures.
  According to the NIH, in the United States more than 4 million people 
suffer from Alzheimer's disease; one in every four deaths is from 
cancer; and every hour of every day, someone is diagnosed with juvenile 
(type 1) diabetes. These brave individuals battling life-threatening 
and debilitating diseases are not responsible for policy or debate, but 
they will be the ones most affected by the outcome of today's vote.
  The President was quoted by the Associated Press over the weekend 
saying, ``I made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal 
money, taxpayers' money to promote science which destroys life in order 
to save life is--I'm against that. And therefore, if the bill does 
that, I will veto it.'' This legislation will not create life for the 
purpose of destruction. These bills will expand the scope of research 
that the Bush Administration has already approved. It is unfortunate 
President Bush would dash the hopes of so many people looking for 
medical answers through research.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues join me today in advancing science 
and supporting H.R. 810. Congress and the Administration must not 
withdraw from progress, but embrace the immense opportunities that 
expanded stem cell research can have for the future and wellbeing of 
our Nation's public health.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 810. I would like to thank 
Representatives Castle and DeGette for their leadership on this 
important issue.
  Recent advancements in medical technology have created hope for the 
millions of people, and their families, who suffer from the effects of 
diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes. Stem cell 
research may hold the key to better treatment options, and even a cure, 
for diseases like these and others.
  Many of us will have lasting images of President Ronald Reagan and 
Christopher Reeves as their frail bodies deteriorated over the years. 
And I will nev